Partner Visa False Information Refusal: PIC 4020 and Review

What is a partner visa false information refusal?

A partner visa false information refusal is a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse a partner visa because the applicant does not satisfy public interest criterion 4020, the integrity criterion in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994. In plain terms, the Department has found evidence that the applicant gave, or caused someone else to give, information that is false or misleading in a material particular, or a bogus document. A partner visa false information finding is one of the most serious outcomes an applicant can face, because it affects more than one application. It can follow the person, and members of their family unit, into later visa applications.

PIC 4020 applies to every partner visa. For the onshore Subclass 820 visa, clause 820.226 requires the primary applicant to satisfy PIC 4020, and clause 820.326 applies it to secondary applicants. For the permanent Subclass 801 stage, clause 801.325 does the same. The offshore Subclass 309 visa and the Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa are also subject to it. The complete partner visa guide explains where PIC 4020 sits among the other criteria.

This article is about partner visa false information cases where the problem is what the applicant or the sponsor said, wrote or left out, rather than a forged certificate. It explains what PIC 4020 actually requires, how the Department identifies partner visa false information, the natural justice step before refusal, the waiver, how a refusal differs from a cancellation, what the ART can do on review, and what a refusal means for future visas and for the sponsor. Readers who have just received a decision can also read our guide to partner visa refusals and our overview of why partner visas get refused.

Is a false information refusal the same as a finding that the relationship is not genuine?

No. A partner visa false information refusal and a genuine relationship refusal are legally separate, although they often appear in the same decision. A genuine relationship refusal means the decision maker was not satisfied that the couple are spouses or de facto partners. A PIC 4020 refusal means the decision maker found false or misleading information or a bogus document. The Department can refuse under PIC 4020 even where it accepts that the relationship is genuine, and the consequences of the PIC 4020 finding for later applications are separate and often more serious.

What does PIC 4020 say?

PIC 4020 has five working parts: a ban on false or misleading information and bogus documents, a non-grant period for people previously refused on that basis, an identity requirement, a waiver, and a definition of what "false or misleading in a material particular" means. Each part matters in partner visa false information cases, and each is assessed separately.

PIC 4020(1): false or misleading information and bogus documents

PIC 4020(1) requires that there is no evidence before the decision maker 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 in relation to a visa the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made. The Department's procedural instruction breaks this into four elements: there is evidence before the decision maker; the applicant gave or caused it to be given to the Minister, an officer, the ART during review, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth; the material is a bogus document or false or misleading information in a material particular; and it relates to the current application or a visa held in that 12-month period.

The words "no evidence" are important. The Department's policy states that PIC 4020(1) is satisfied unless there is evidence to the contrary, and that suspicion without evidence cannot found a refusal. The decision maker does not have to prove falsity conclusively, but must show the reasoning that led to the finding.

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

PIC 4020(2) requires the decision maker to be satisfied that, in the period starting three years before the current application was made and ending when it is decided, neither the applicant nor a member of their family unit has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1). This is the provision that turns one partner visa false information refusal into a problem for later applications.

PIC 4020(2A) and (2B): identity

PIC 4020(2A) requires the applicant to satisfy the decision maker as to their identity. PIC 4020(2B) applies a ten-year non-grant period where the applicant or a member of their family unit has been refused a visa for failing PIC 4020(2A). The Department's policy is clear that there is no waiver for the identity requirements.

PIC 4020(4): the waiver

PIC 4020(4) allows the decision maker to waive PIC 4020(1) and (2), but not the identity parts, where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen, that justify the grant of the visa. The waiver is discussed in detail below.

PIC 4020(5): the definition

PIC 4020(5) defines information that is false or misleading in a material particular as information that is false or misleading at the time it is given, and relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when deciding the application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information. PIC 4020(3) adds that the criterion applies whether or not the decision maker became aware of the information because of something the applicant gave. Both points are explained in the next section.

What does "false or misleading in a material particular" mean?

Information is false or misleading in a material particular if it was false or misleading when it was given and it is relevant to any criterion for the visa, whether or not the decision would have turned on it. That is a wide test, and it is the centre of most partner visa false information disputes.

False and misleading are different

The Department treats false information as information that is contrary to fact or wrong. Misleading information is information that gives the wrong idea or creates a false impression, even if part of it is true. The Department's own example is a person who says they are employed full time by a business when they are in fact a casual employee of that business. Every word except one may be accurate, but the overall impression is wrong. In partner visa false information cases, misleading information is more common than outright falsehood. A relationship timeline that is broadly true but moves a date, or leaves out a period apart, is the typical example.

Materiality is broad

The information only has to be relevant to a criterion the decision maker may consider. It does not have to be decisive. Relationship history, cohabitation dates, previous marriages, children, immigration history and character information are all relevant to partner visa criteria, so almost any inaccuracy on those subjects can be material. The common belief that a "small" error cannot matter if the relationship is genuine is wrong as a matter of law. The question is relevance, not importance to the outcome.

Timing: false at the time it was given

The information must have been false or misleading at the time it was given. A statement that was true when made, and later became untrue because circumstances changed, is not false information under PIC 4020(1) on that basis alone. It may, however, raise a separate duty to notify the change under section 104 of the Migration Act 1958, discussed below.

Correcting the record does not automatically cure it

PIC 4020(3) means the criterion applies whether or not the Department learned of the problem from the applicant. A later correction does not erase information that was false or misleading when it was given. That does not mean correction is pointless. A prompt, voluntary correction with a credible explanation is often the strongest evidence that the original error was an innocent mistake. It does mean that applicants should not assume a quiet amendment closes a partner visa false information issue.

Purposeful falsity and innocent mistakes

The Department's policy, which reflects Full Federal Court authority set out in the procedural instruction, is that a refusal under PIC 4020 requires the information or document to have the quality of "purposeful falsity", meaning it was intentionally untrue. That quality can exist even if the applicant personally did not know about it. Equally, an application cannot be refused under PIC 4020 where the applicant can explain an innocent mistake in information provided by them or on their behalf. The policy places the onus on the applicant, in the response to the invitation to comment, to explain why the information was given and to show that it was a genuine mistake. This is why the response stage in a partner visa false information matter is so important.

The 12-month look-back to earlier visa applications

PIC 4020(1) is not limited to the partner visa application itself. It also covers information given in relation to a visa the applicant held in the 12 months before the partner visa application was made. For most onshore applicants, that means the visitor, student, working holiday or other temporary visa they held when they applied for the Subclass 820 partner visa.

This is where many partner visa false information problems start. A person who applied for a visitor visa as "single", while in a relationship with their Australian partner, may later lodge a partner visa claiming a de facto relationship that began before that visitor visa application. The two statements cannot both be true. The Department can compare them, and if the visitor visa was held within the 12-month window, the earlier statement can found a PIC 4020 refusal of the partner visa. Applicants moving from a visitor visa should read our guide on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa before lodging.

Information given for an older visa, outside the 12-month window, is not caught by PIC 4020(1) directly. It is still part of the person's immigration history. The Department can rely on it when assessing credibility and the genuine relationship criteria, and an inconsistency between old and new statements can itself be a trigger for closer scrutiny of the current partner visa application.

Errors made by migration agents, relatives and other third parties

PIC 4020 covers information the applicant gave and information the applicant "caused to be given". Information given by a migration agent, lawyer, relative, sponsor or friend on the applicant's behalf can therefore found a partner visa false information refusal, even if the applicant did not personally write it.

The Department's policy is that a decision maker does not have to decide whether the applicant knowingly or directly gave the information. What matters is whether the information has the quality of purposeful falsity. In practice, this produces two kinds of third-party case:

• Innocent error by a representative. An agent typed the wrong date, ticked the wrong box or copied information from another client's file. The information is false, but there was no intention to deceive. This is the classic innocent mistake case, and the response needs evidence from the representative and the file to show how the error happened.
• Deliberate falsity by someone else. A representative or relative invented a document, inflated an employment history or coached a false account. The applicant may say they did not know. Under the policy, the falsity can still be attributed to the application, and the applicant's lack of knowledge does not automatically save it. The case then often turns on the waiver.

The Department also lists, among triggers for investigation, an application assisted by a person known to the Department as associated with suspected fraud. Applicants who are worried about the quality of past help should get a second opinion from an immigration lawyer early. Our guide to changing your immigration lawyer explains the practical steps, and Form 956 is the form used to appoint a new representative. Applicants who lodged their own application and are now concerned can read about hiring a lawyer after lodgement.

Common partner visa false information examples

The most common partner visa false information issues arise from the relationship history, the applicant's immigration history and the personal details in the forms, not from forged documents. The examples below are general illustrations of the kinds of information the Department compares. They are not drawn from any client matter.

Relationship start date and the de facto 12-month period

A de facto applicant must generally show a relationship of at least 12 months before the application, unless an exception applies. That requirement creates pressure to bring the start date forward. If the relationship statement, the forms and the Form 888 supporting statements give a start date that the evidence does not support, the date is both false and material. Our guides to the de facto partner visa 12-month rule and to whether you really need 12 months of de facto relationship for a Subclass 820 explain the lawful alternatives, including registration of the relationship. Inventing an earlier start date is never one of them.

Cohabitation history

The date the couple began living together, and any periods apart, are compared with leases, bank statements, mail, travel records and earlier visa applications. A partner visa false information concern often arises where the application says the couple have lived together continuously, but the records show separate addresses or a long period overseas. Periods apart are not fatal to a genuine relationship if they are explained. Concealing them is what creates the PIC 4020 risk. Our article on partner visa relationship evidence explains how to present periods apart honestly.

Previous relationships, marriages and divorces

Applicants are asked about previous marriages and relationships. A previous marriage that was not disclosed, a divorce that was not finalised when the applicant claimed to be single, or an overlap between a previous relationship and the current one, can each become a partner visa false information issue. The same applies to the sponsor's history, which is relevant to the sponsorship limitations and to the overall credibility of the relationship account.

Children

Every child of the applicant must be declared, whether or not the child is migrating. Undisclosed children, incorrect parentage or a child described as a dependant when the facts are otherwise are recurring issues. Parentage can be material where a child is included as a secondary applicant, and the Department can request evidence, including DNA testing, which is voluntary.

Travel and immigration history

Visa applications ask for travel history, previous visas, overstay and compliance history. Earlier statements in visitor or student visa applications, such as the purpose of the visit, the person's relationship status or their intention to return home, are compared with the partner visa account. Where those earlier statements were made for a visa held in the 12 months before the partner visa application, they fall directly within PIC 4020(1).

Previous visa refusals and cancellations

The forms ask whether the applicant has ever been refused a visa or had a visa cancelled, in Australia or in another country. A "no" answer when there was a refusal is a classic material misstatement. It is also unnecessary, because a previous refusal is usually something that can be managed if it is disclosed and explained. Applicants with refusal history should read our guide to applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal.

Employment, study and finances

Employment claims, employer letters, payslips and bank statements are often used to support the financial aspects of the relationship. An inflated job title, an employer letter written by the applicant, or a bank statement that has been edited, can move a case from misleading information into bogus documents. The Department lists an employment reference drafted by the employee but not endorsed by the employer as an example of a document obtained on the basis of a false statement.

Omissions and failure to notify changes

Leaving information out can be misleading. The Department's own partner visa example is an applicant who did not notify the Department that their sponsor had died shortly after the application was lodged. Section 104 of the Migration Act 1958 requires an applicant to notify changes that make an answer in the application incorrect, which is done on Form 1022. If the relationship ends, our article on what happens to a Subclass 820 application when the relationship breaks down explains the options. Staying silent and continuing to present the relationship as current is how a separation becomes a partner visa false information case.

Personal particulars and Form 80

Names, dates of birth, previous names, addresses and employment history in Form 80 must be consistent with earlier applications. A different date of birth or name across applications can raise identity concerns under PIC 4020(2A) as well as false information concerns under PIC 4020(1).

How does the Department identify partner visa false information?

The Department identifies partner visa false information mainly by comparing what the applicant has said with what it already holds or can verify. Most cases start with an inconsistency rather than a tip-off.

The Department's procedural instruction lists triggers that may justify further investigation, including where the applicant:

• has previously withdrawn an application after being asked to comment on the genuineness of a document;
• repeatedly asks for extensions to respond to requests for information without an acceptable reason;
• was assisted by a person known to the Department as associated with known or suspected fraud;
• has an immigration history suggesting false or misleading information or bogus documents in earlier applications;
• has made claims inconsistent with claims previously made by themselves or their sponsor about their immigration history; or
• is the subject of an allegation about their identity or claims.

Verification can include contacting employers, issuing authorities and referees, checking movement records, comparing earlier visa applications, interviewing the couple separately and contacting the people who gave Form 888 statements. Allegations from former partners and relatives are common in partner visa matters. An allegation alone is not evidence of falsity, but it can lead the Department to look for evidence.

Where the Department needs more material, it may first send a request under section 56 of the Migration Act. Our guide to responding to a section 56 request explains that step. A section 56 request about dates, addresses or previous applications can be the first sign that a partner visa false information concern is forming, and the answer should be prepared with that in mind.

The section 57 natural justice letter before a refusal

The Department must give the applicant a chance to comment before refusing a partner visa under PIC 4020. In most cases that invitation is a letter under section 57 of the Migration Act 1958, often called a natural justice letter.

Section 57 requires the decision maker to give particulars of information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusal, where that information is specifically about the applicant or another person and was not given by the applicant for the purposes of the application. The decision maker must ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the applicant understands why it is relevant, invite comment, and state how and when to respond. The Department's PIC 4020 policy goes further and says that applicants must be given the opportunity to comment whenever a PIC 4020 refusal is being considered, and must also be invited to give reasons why PIC 4020 should be waived.

According to the policy, a good PIC 4020 letter should:

• identify the information said to be false or misleading, and how it was given;
• explain how it is said to be false or misleading;
• identify the material particular, meaning the visa criterion it is relevant to;
• identify which application the information relates to: the current application or a visa held in the 12-month period;
• identify any document said to be bogus and which part of the statutory definition applies; and
• invite comment on the waiver.

The Department is not required to disclose the source of adverse information, and it does not have to disclose non-disclosable information. The response time is short and strictly applied. Our detailed guide to the section 57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explains the general process, and any person who has received a letter raising partner visa false information should seek advice immediately rather than drafting a reply alone.

What happens if the applicant does not respond or withdraws?

If no response is received within the time allowed, the Department decides on the material before it and records the suspected fraud in its systems. If the applicant withdraws the application in response to a PIC 4020 letter, the policy says the application is finalised as withdrawn, the suspected fraud is recorded, and an alert is raised so that later applications are not auto-granted and receive closer scrutiny. Withdrawal may avoid a formal PIC 4020 refusal, but it does not make the concern disappear. It should only be considered after advice on the whole immigration position.

How to respond to a partner visa false information concern

The response to a partner visa false information concern should do three things: deal directly with each piece of information identified, explain how any error occurred with evidence, and make a separate case for the waiver. A general statement that the relationship is genuine does not answer a PIC 4020 concern.

Step 1: obtain the full record

Before anything is written, the person responding needs to see exactly what was lodged: every form, statement, attachment and earlier visa application relevant to the 12-month window. The ImmiAccount history can help, and applicants who no longer have access can set up an ImmiAccount and link applications where possible. A response written without the original record often repeats the inconsistency or creates a new one.

Step 2: identify the true facts and the source of the error

The response must establish what actually happened and why the information given was different. Was it a typing error, a misunderstanding of the question, a translation problem, an agent's mistake, or a deliberate choice? Each explanation needs different evidence. Where an agent or interpreter made the error, a statement from that person and copies of their file are often essential.

Step 3: correct the record with evidence

Corrected information should be supported with documents: leases, bank records, travel records, divorce orders, birth certificates, employer confirmations or the relevant earlier application. A relationship statement that sets out the true timeline consistently, and supporting evidence prepared in line with our guide on preparing evidence of a genuine relationship, help show that the corrected account is reliable.

Step 4: address purposeful falsity directly

If the error was innocent, the response must say so and prove it. If part of the information was knowingly wrong, the response must be honest about that. A response that denies a falsehood the evidence clearly shows will usually make the partner visa false information finding certain, and can damage credibility on every other criterion.

Step 5: make the waiver submission

The response should treat the waiver as a separate issue, with its own evidence, even where the main argument is innocent mistake. The waiver is considered only if the decision maker is not satisfied by the explanation, and the decision maker cannot consider circumstances it has not been told about.

The PIC 4020 waiver in partner visa cases

PIC 4020(1) and PIC 4020(2) can be waived, but only if the decision maker is satisfied that there are 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, that justify the grant of the visa. The identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B) cannot be waived.

The Australian interest limb

The Department's examples of compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia are damage to trade or business opportunities, damage to Australia's relationship with a foreign government, or the loss of a significant benefit the person could contribute, such as a highly sought-after skill. The policy states that merely working and paying taxes, paying education fees or spending money in Australia is not enough. This limb rarely applies in partner visa false information cases.

The Australian citizen or resident limb

The second limb is the one most relevant to partner visas. The circumstances must affect an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. Circumstances that affect only the applicant are not relevant unless they also affect such a person. The Department's policy expressly recognises that, in the partner visa context, the nature of the bonds between partners in a genuine relationship and the consequences of separation differ from case to case.

Factors listed in the policy include an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen child under 18 in Australia who would be adversely affected, existing family networks in Australia, whether the applicant is part of the child's immediate family, and significant health or welfare issues affecting an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. The waiver is discretionary and assessed case by case.

Building waiver evidence

A waiver submission in a partner visa false information case usually needs evidence from the Australian sponsor about the effect of refusal on them, evidence about any Australian children, independent evidence of any health or welfare issues affecting the sponsor or children, and evidence of family ties in Australia. The Department's policy also says that family violence, in itself, is unlikely to satisfy the Australian interest limb. Where family violence is part of the history, separate advice is needed, and our family violence partner visa page explains the separate provisions that may apply. A waiver submission should be persuasive and specific. A short paragraph saying that the couple love each other is not a waiver case.

How a PIC 4020 refusal differs from a section 109 cancellation

A PIC 4020 refusal applies to a visa application that has not yet been granted, while section 109 of the Migration Act 1958 is a power to cancel a visa that has already been granted because of incorrect information. The Department's PIC 4020 policy states plainly that PIC 4020 is a criterion for grant and does not apply to cancellations.

Sections 101 to 105 and 107(2) of the Migration Act impose obligations on visa applicants and holders: to answer questions correctly, to give correct information, not to give bogus documents, to notify incorrect answers they become aware of, and to notify changes in circumstances. If a visa holder did not comply with those obligations, section 109 allows the Minister to consider cancelling the visa, after a notice under section 107 has been given and the holder has had a chance to respond. That is why a person who already holds a Subclass 820 visa, and is waiting for the Subclass 801 decision, can face two separate processes: a partner visa false information assessment of the 801 application under PIC 4020, and a possible section 109 cancellation of the 820 visa they hold.

The consequences also differ. A PIC 4020(1) refusal can trigger the three-year non-grant period in PIC 4020(2). A cancellation for incorrect information or bogus documents can trigger a three-year exclusion period under PIC 4013 for many later visas. The Department's exclusion period policy notes that if a section 109 cancellation is set aside by the Tribunal or a court, the visa is taken never to have been cancelled. Our guide to responding to a partner visa cancellation explains the cancellation side.

ART review of a partner visa false information refusal

Most partner visa false information refusals can be reviewed on the merits by the Administrative Review Tribunal, which replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. The ART reconsiders the decision afresh. It can look at new evidence, hear from the applicant, the sponsor and witnesses, decide for itself whether PIC 4020 is satisfied, and consider the waiver itself.

Who applies for review?

For an onshore Subclass 820 or 801 refusal, the review application is usually made by the visa applicant. For an offshore Subclass 309, Subclass 100 or Subclass 300 refusal, the review application is usually made by the Australian sponsor. The refusal letter states whether the decision is reviewable, who may apply and the time limit. The time limit is short, strictly applied, and runs from the date the decision is notified. Action is needed immediately. Our article on what to expect in ART review after a refusal explains the process, and our guide to partner visa refusal appeal options sets out the choices.

What evidence does the ART need in a partner visa false information review?

The evidence needed for ART review of a partner visa false information refusal is evidence that answers the specific finding, not general relationship evidence. It usually includes:

• the complete Department file, obtained so the exact information relied on can be examined;
• the original forms, statements and earlier visa applications in which the information was given;
• documents proving the true facts, such as tenancy records, bank statements, travel records, civil documents and employer confirmation;
• statements from any agent, interpreter, relative or other person involved in giving the information, explaining how the error happened;
• a detailed statement from the applicant, and where relevant the sponsor, explaining the circumstances honestly and consistently; and
• waiver evidence: the effect of refusal on the Australian sponsor, any Australian children, family ties in Australia and any health or welfare issues affecting Australian citizens or residents.

The Tribunal will test the explanation at the hearing. Witnesses who repeat a prepared script, or whose evidence does not match the documents, can damage the case. Preparation is about making sure each person gives their own honest account and that every document is consistent with it. Our page on visa appeal lawyers explains how representation works at the ART.

What can the ART decide?

The ART can affirm the refusal, or set it aside and remit the matter to the Department for reconsideration, commonly with a direction that the applicant satisfies PIC 4020 or a related criterion. The Department's policy notes that the non-grant period from a PIC 4020 refusal remains in effect while the matter is before the ART. The effect of a successful review on the non-grant period should be confirmed for the particular case.

Matters the Tribunal has remitted on this issue

Published Tribunal decisions include several matters in which the Tribunal remitted a partner visa decision involving PIC 4020 issues. The issues reported include: false or misleading information in a material particular in a previous visitor visa application about marital status, where the couple were separated but still living together (TRUONG (Migration) [2024] AATA 680, Subclass 820); false or misleading information about the biological parentage of a secondary applicant, with DNA results and the question of whether it was material to the application (Mohammadi (Migration) [2021] AATA 5554, Subclass 309); a failure to disclose details of a previous relationship and a Subclass 300 application (2107016 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2250, Subclass 820); and a bogus marriage certificate and false information about marital status, with compassionate or compelling circumstances considered (CHEN (Migration) [2022] AATA 3269, Subclass 309). These were decided by the former AAT. Each turned on its own facts, and none indicates how any other case will be decided.

Judicial review

If the ART affirms a partner visa false information refusal, judicial review in the courts is limited to legal error, such as a failure to put adverse information properly or a misunderstanding of the "material particular" test. It is not a rehearing of the facts. Our judicial review page explains when it may be available.

Consequences of a partner visa false information refusal for future visas

A partner visa false information refusal under PIC 4020(1) can prevent the grant of later visas for three years, and an identity refusal under PIC 4020(2A) can prevent grant for ten years. These are the non-grant periods in PIC 4020(2) and (2B).

How the three-year non-grant period works

The period looks back three years from the date of the later application and runs forward until that later application is decided. A PIC 4020(1) refusal that happens after the later application was lodged can still count. The Department's policy gives a partner visa example in which a visitor visa refused under PIC 4020(1) shortly before a partner visa was lodged was caught by PIC 4020(2) when the partner visa was assessed. The three-year period can be waived on the same grounds as PIC 4020(1). The ten-year identity period cannot.

Family unit members are affected

The non-grant periods apply where the applicant or a member of their family unit was refused. One spouse's PIC 4020(1) refusal can therefore affect the other spouse's later application, and the policy says this applies even where the person refused was not a member of the family unit when the refusal occurred. Applicants who were under 18 when the refused application was made are not subject to the non-grant periods, although they can still be refused under PIC 4020 itself.

Onshore applicants and the section 48 bar

An onshore applicant whose partner visa is refused may face the section 48 bar on making further visa applications in Australia while they remain in Australia without a substantive visa. Some partner visas can still be applied for onshore after a refusal, subject to strict conditions. Our guide to applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains this, and our Schedule 3 waiver page and Schedule 3 criteria guide explain the additional criteria for applicants who are unlawful. Any new application during a non-grant period will meet PIC 4020(2) unless a waiver is granted.

Bridging visa status

An onshore applicant usually holds a Bridging visa A while the partner visa is processed. That bridging visa generally continues during a valid ART review application, but it can cease if review is not sought in time. Our guide to bridging visas in Australia explains the general rules. Lawful status is one more reason not to delay.

Records and future scrutiny

Even when a non-grant period ends, the Department's systems keep a record. The policy requires suspected fraud to be recorded, including where the applicant withdraws or does not respond. Every future visa application should therefore disclose the history accurately and be prepared on the basis that the decision maker will see it.

What a partner visa false information refusal means for the sponsor

A partner visa false information refusal is a decision about the visa applicant, not a refusal of the sponsor, but it affects the sponsor in several practical ways.

First, the sponsor's own statements are part of the evidence. The sponsorship form, the sponsor's relationship statement and the sponsor's answers at interview are compared with the applicant's account. If the sponsor gave the information that is said to be false, the sponsor's evidence will be central on review. Section 234 of the Migration Act makes it an offence to make false statements in connection with visa applications, so every statement the sponsor signs must be true.

Second, in an offshore Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 refusal, the sponsor is usually the person who must apply to the ART. The sponsor's preparedness to give evidence honestly, and their understanding of the original error, can decide the review.

Third, the sponsor is often the person whose interests ground the waiver. The second waiver limb looks at the effect of refusal on an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. The sponsor's circumstances, and those of any Australian children, are usually the core of a partner visa false information waiver case.

Fourth, a refusal does not by itself prevent the sponsor from sponsoring again, but any later application by the same couple will be assessed against the history, including the non-grant period. Separate limits on how often a person can sponsor are explained in our guide on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa.

Mistakes that make a partner visa false information case worse

The mistakes that most often turn a partner visa false information concern into a refusal are avoidable. They include:

• Replying without the original record. Responding to a section 57 letter from memory risks repeating the inconsistency or creating a new one.
• Denying the obvious. Where documents clearly show the information was wrong, a denial destroys credibility. Honest explanation is stronger.
• Treating it as a relationship issue only. More relationship evidence does not answer a PIC 4020 concern. The response must deal with the specific information and the waiver.
• Blaming a representative without evidence. An assertion that "the agent made a mistake" carries little weight without the agent's statement, the file and an explanation of how the error happened.
• Withdrawing in a panic. Withdrawal is recorded and may leave the person without status or options. It needs advice first.
• Leaving the waiver out. The decision maker cannot weigh circumstances it is not told about.
• Missing the review deadline. The ART time limit is short and strictly applied. A partner visa false information refusal should be reviewed by a lawyer the day it arrives, using our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice as a checklist of what to have ready.

Prevention is better still. Applicants preparing an application now should use our partner visa document checklist and the Subclass 820 evidence checklist, compare every date with earlier visa applications, and disclose difficult history openly. Our articles on the most common Subclass 820 refusal reasons and on Subclass 820 versus Subclass 801 explain how the permanent stage reassesses the same facts, which is why consistency must last for the life of the application.

How My Migration Lawyers handles partner visa false information refusals

My Migration Lawyers acts in partner visa false information matters at every stage: when a section 56 request first raises a concern, when a section 57 letter proposes refusal under PIC 4020, and after refusal at the Administrative Review Tribunal. These are complex cases. My Migration Lawyers regularly acts in matters of this exact type and has the experience to handle them carefully, from the first document review to the hearing.

On a partner visa false information matter, the firm's work usually involves these concrete steps:

• Rebuilding the record. The firm obtains the full Department file, every form and statement lodged, and the earlier visa applications within the 12-month look-back, so that each piece of information said to be false can be examined against what was actually given.
• Testing the finding. Each element of PIC 4020(1) is checked: whether there is evidence, who gave or caused the information to be given, whether it was false or misleading when given, and whether it is relevant to a criterion. Where the finding is wrong on any element, the submission says so.
• Explaining the error with evidence. Where the information was an innocent mistake, the firm presents the client's own account and the documents that prove it, including statements from any agent, interpreter or other person involved, in the form the law requires.
• Building the waiver case. The firm assembles evidence of the effect of refusal on the Australian sponsor, any Australian children and family in Australia, and presents it as a separate PIC 4020(4) submission.
• Preparing for the ART. For review, the firm prepares written submissions, organises the evidence, prepares the applicant, the sponsor and witnesses to give honest and consistent evidence, and appears at the hearing.
• Planning beyond the decision. The firm advises on lawful status, bridging visas, the non-grant period and the safest route for any future application.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer, and you can read more about My Migration Lawyers. Our partner visa lawyers handle refusals and reviews across Australia, and our visa refusals team deals with PIC 4020 refusals in other visa programs as well. Clients come to us from every capital city, including through our pages for partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. Readers comparing firms can use our guides on choosing the best partner visa lawyer in Australia, in Sydney, in Melbourne and in Brisbane, our article on whether to use a partner visa lawyer or do it yourself, and our explanation of when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa. Our guide to booking an immigration lawyer consultation explains what to bring.

My Migration Lawyers cannot promise any outcome, and no honest lawyer can. What the firm can do is make sure the decision maker or the Tribunal has the full and accurate picture, that every element of the partner visa false information finding is tested, and that the waiver case is properly made. If you have received a section 57 letter or a partner visa false information refusal, act now while the time to respond or seek review is still running.

Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers today.

You can also call My Migration Lawyers on 1300 040 300.