Partner Visa Family Violence After Separation

What does partner visa family violence after separation mean?

Partner visa family violence after separation describes the situation where a partner visa applicant has separated from the sponsor, family violence occurred, and the applicant asks the Department of Home Affairs to grant the visa under the family violence provisions instead of the ordinary relationship criteria. The issue in almost every partner visa family violence after separation case is timing. The law asks when the violence happened, when the relationship ended, and whether the two overlapped.

If you are in immediate danger, call 000 now. Nothing in this article is more important than your safety, and no visa step should be taken in a way that puts you at further risk.

Most partner visas are granted on the basis that the couple are still in a genuine and continuing relationship. When the relationship ends, the ordinary pathway usually ends with it. Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which contains regulations 1.21 to 1.27, is one of the limited exceptions. It allows the Department to keep processing the application, and to grant the permanent visa, where the applicant can show that they, or certain family members, experienced family violence committed by the former partner. For an overview of the whole partner visa process, see the complete partner visa guide. For the firm's dedicated service page on these matters, see family violence partner visa lawyers.

This article is written for applicants who have already separated, or who are planning to leave, and who want to understand how partner visa family violence after separation is actually assessed. It focuses on the timing rule, on abuse that continued after the breakup, on telling the Department that the relationship has ended, on the sponsor withdrawing sponsorship, and on the applicant's visa position while the claim is decided. It deliberately keeps the discussion of evidence types general. The evidence rules are detailed and technical, and they are best applied to the facts of each case by experienced partner visa lawyers.

Can you still get a partner visa after separation if there was family violence?

Yes. A partner visa applicant can still be granted a permanent partner visa after the relationship has ended if the applicant, or another person named in the relevant Schedule 2 criteria, experienced family violence committed by the former partner, and the family violence, or part of it, occurred while the relationship existed. This is the core of every partner visa family violence after separation claim.

The Department's procedural instruction on Division 1.5 states the position in broad terms. For the visas to which Division 1.5 applies, Schedule 2 provides for grant of a permanent visa to be considered if the partner relationship has ceased and the applicant, or a dependent child, or a member of the family unit, has experienced family violence committed by the applicant's former partner. The same instruction then says something many applicants do not expect: there is no requirement that the relationship must have ceased because of family violence.

That point matters in partner visa family violence after separation cases. A relationship may end for many reasons. The sponsor may leave for someone else. The couple may separate after a financial crisis. The applicant may leave after one serious incident, or after years of slow control. The cause of the separation is not the legal test. What matters is whether the relationship was genuine until it ended, and whether qualifying family violence occurred while it existed.

People in this position often read about the Subclass 820 relationship breakdown rules and assume their application is finished. That is wrong where family violence occurred during the relationship. The application can continue on a different legal footing, and anyone facing partner visa family violence after separation should obtain urgent immigration advice before assuming the worst.

Which partner visas the family violence provisions cover

The family violence provisions apply to the partner visa subclasses that lead to permanent residence. The Department's procedural instruction lists Subclass 100, Subclass 309, Subclass 801 and Subclass 820, and notes that Subclass 820 includes Subclass 300 holders. The Department of Home Affairs family violence provisions page also lists the Prospective Marriage visa, Subclass 300, among the partner visas covered.

In practice, the provisions are used in four common situations:

• an onshore applicant who lodged a Subclass 820 partner visa application and separated before the temporary visa was decided;
• a Subclass 820 holder who separated before the permanent Subclass 801 stage was decided;
• an offshore Subclass 309 applicant, or a Subclass 309 holder waiting for the Subclass 100 stage, who separated after coming to Australia; and
• a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa holder whose relationship with the sponsor ended, sometimes before the wedding took place.

The provisions apply equally to married couples and de facto couples, including de facto partners who met the 12 month de facto requirement, other de facto partners and same sex couples. Applicants in an LGBTI partner visa relationship can rely on Division 1.5 in exactly the same way.

The family violence provisions do not apply to every visa. The procedural instruction is explicit that applicants for subclasses not listed cannot be considered under Division 1.5 because there is no corresponding Schedule 2 criterion. A person who holds a visitor visa or a student visa and whose relationship ended before any partner visa was lodged cannot use these provisions to obtain a partner visa.

When must the family violence have happened for a partner visa claim?

The family violence, or part of it, must have occurred while the married, de facto or prospective spouse relationship existed between the alleged perpetrator and the applicant. This is the timing rule at the centre of partner visa family violence after separation, and it is where many claims succeed or fail.

The Department's procedural instruction is direct. Decision makers must be satisfied that the family violence, or part of the family violence, occurred while the relationship existed. If the relationship did not exist when the family violence occurred, the claim of family violence cannot be progressed. The Department of Home Affairs public page on the family violence provisions uses the same words: the family violence, or part of it, must have occurred during the relationship with that person.

Three consequences follow for anyone dealing with partner visa family violence after separation.

First, violence that happened only after the separation cannot, by itself, satisfy Division 1.5. If the former partner was respectful throughout the relationship and became abusive only after the applicant left, the family violence provisions will not usually be available on that conduct alone. That is a hard rule, and it is better to learn it early from an immigration lawyer for partner visas.

Second, the words "or part of it" are important. A course of conduct that started during the relationship and continued after separation can satisfy the rule. The Department does not require every incident to fall inside the relationship period. It requires that the family violence, or part of it, did.

Third, the applicant must be able to show when the relationship ended. A claim that the violence happened "during the relationship" means little if the Department believes the relationship ended months earlier.

Why the date the relationship ended matters so much

The end date of the relationship decides which conduct falls inside the relationship period and which conduct falls after it. In a partner visa family violence after separation claim, an end date that is placed too early can push the most important incidents outside the period the law requires.

The procedural instruction recognises that relationships rarely end on one clear day. It says relationship cessation does not always occur at a clearly defined point in time, that a relationship might break down over several months, and that there may be attempts at reconciliation. Where family violence occurred during the breakdown of the relationship, decision makers are told to be flexible in deciding when the relationship existed.

In assessing the end date, the Department looks at evidence such as:

• the date the Department was told the relationship started and ended, including any withdrawal of sponsorship;
• earlier advice from the applicant or the sponsor that the relationship had ended;
• findings made by earlier decision makers about the relationship dates; and
• advice about separation or divorce proceedings.

Decision makers are not bound to treat the date of a sponsorship withdrawal as the end date. The instruction says they may decide that the relationship ended on another date, having regard to when the couple stopped living together, what steps were taken to tell others, and when their finances were separated. This is why the first statement to the Department about the separation must be accurate and carefully considered. A careless date given in a short email can later be quoted back against the applicant.

Leaving and returning: separations that are not final

Many people experiencing family violence leave and return more than once. The procedural instruction accepts this. It tells decision makers that it is not unusual for an alleged victim to make several attempts to leave, to maintain contact with the alleged perpetrator, or to return to the relationship, and that dates of the end of the relationship may not always be clear because trauma can affect memory.

For partner visa family violence after separation, this means an earlier short separation does not necessarily mean the relationship ended at that point. If the couple reconciled and resumed a genuine relationship, conduct after the reconciliation can still fall within the relationship period. The applicant's account must explain each separation and each return clearly, so that the decision maker can see the real shape of the relationship.

What changed for partner visa family violence claims in 2024

The family violence provisions for partner visas were amended by the Migration Amendment (Family Violence Provisions for Partner Visa Applicants) Regulations 2024, which commenced on 1 July 2024. Those amendments are directly relevant to partner visa family violence after separation.

The 2024 amendments allowed Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa holders, and former holders, to access the relationship cessation provisions for the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visas even where they had not married the sponsor. The timing rule was also reworded so that it covers a prospective spouse relationship. The family violence must have occurred while the married or de facto relationship existed or, for a prospective spouse, while the relationship with the prospective spouse existed. The amendments also changed the regulations to refer to a person having "experienced" family violence rather than having "suffered" it.

For offshore applicants, the amended Subclass 309 family violence criterion requires that the applicant entered Australia at some point after making the application, but the applicant may be in or outside Australia when the claim is made. The sponsorship requirement no longer applies to applicants who meet the relationship cessation provisions, because the relationship with the sponsoring partner has ended.

These changes mean that partner visa family violence after separation claims by Prospective Marriage visa holders are now assessed under the same timing rule as claims by spouses and de facto partners. A partner visa lawyer can confirm which version of the provisions applies to a particular application.

Further amendments to Division 1.5 later in 2024 extended family violence protection to secondary applicants for a number of skilled, business and family permanent visas. Those changes do not alter the partner visa timing rule discussed above, but they explain why the current list of visas covered by Division 1.5 is much longer than it was.

Is abuse that continued after separation relevant to a partner visa?

Yes. Abuse that continued or escalated after separation is relevant to a partner visa family violence claim, even though post separation conduct alone cannot satisfy the timing rule. It is often the clearest evidence that the abuse during the relationship was real, serious and part of a pattern.

The Department's own guidance acknowledges this. The procedural instruction says that it is not unusual for the most serious acts of family violence to occur after a relationship ends, as an escalation from a dynamic of abuse during the relationship. It also notes research showing that the most dangerous time for a victim of family violence is immediately before and after leaving.

Post separation abuse is relevant to partner visa family violence after separation in at least four ways:

• it can corroborate the applicant's account of what happened during the relationship, because the same tactics continue;
• it can explain why the applicant did not report earlier, especially where threats about the visa or about children were used to keep the applicant silent;
• it can produce official records, such as police attendance, a protection order application or a risk assessment, that also describe earlier conduct during the relationship; and
• it can affect the applicant's safety and the way the application is managed, including who receives correspondence.

The procedural instruction also confirms that family violence orders made after separation are acceptable as evidence that the alleged victim has experienced family violence, so long as part of the violence occurred while the relationship existed. A protection order obtained after the breakup is therefore not wasted simply because it post dates the separation.

Stalking, threats and monitoring after the breakup

Stalking, repeated unwanted contact, threats and electronic monitoring are common after separation. The procedural instruction treats technology facilitated abuse, such as tracking movements, monitoring devices and controlling social media, as a form of social abuse. It treats threats to life, threats to family or pets and harassment as verbal or emotional abuse.

Where this conduct continues a pattern that began during the relationship, it strengthens a partner visa family violence after separation claim. Where it is the first abusive conduct of any kind, it will not satisfy the timing rule on its own, but it may still be relevant to safety and to other legal remedies.

Coercive control and immigration abuse

Coercive control is a pattern of behaviour used to create and maintain power over another person. The procedural instruction describes it as almost always an underpinning dynamic of family violence. It can include isolation from friends and family, control of daily activities, monitoring and humiliation, often without any physical violence.

Immigration abuse is a specific form of control that is common in partner visa cases. The procedural instruction describes it as the use of somebody's visa status to control their behaviour. It lists threats to have the applicant's visa cancelled or to have them removed from Australia, threats to the applicant's visa pathway, threats to withdraw sponsorship or actually withdrawing it, telling the applicant they cannot leave or they will be removed, and threats of separation from children.

In partner visa family violence after separation cases, the sponsor often escalates these threats once the applicant leaves. A sponsor who said during the relationship "if you leave, I will have you deported" and who then contacts the Department after separation to allege that the relationship was never genuine is continuing the same conduct. The Department's guidance warns decision makers that an alleged perpetrator may not be an objective source of information once a relationship has ended and a family violence claim has been made.

Financial abuse that continued after separation

Financial abuse is behaviour that limits a person's access to money. The procedural instruction lists examples including controlling money to ensure dependence, forcing a person to sign loans or contracts, using joint finances without consent, incurring debts or fines in the other person's name and not allowing them to work. It also refers to dowry related abuse.

After separation, financial abuse often continues through emptied joint accounts, refusal to release the applicant's belongings, cancelled shared services, or new debts incurred in the applicant's name. These events can corroborate the financial control that existed during the relationship. They can also help fix the date of separation, because the Department looks at when finances were separated in deciding when the relationship ended.

Must the relationship have been genuine before it ended?

Yes. In a partner visa family violence after separation claim, the Department first decides whether the couple were in a genuine spouse, de facto or prospective spouse relationship until it ended. The family violence claim is assessed only after that question is answered in the applicant's favour.

The procedural instruction says that, before any assessment under Division 1.5, decision makers are to assess whether the couple met the definitions in section 5F (spouse) or section 5CB (de facto partner) of the Migration Act 1958, and the corresponding requirements in regulation 1.15A, regulation 1.09A and regulation 2.03A, until the relationship ceased. If the relationship was not genuine, the family violence provisions are never reached.

This is where many partner visa family violence after separation applications are refused. The applicant focuses entirely on the abuse and says little about the relationship itself. The decision maker then finds that the relationship was not genuine and continuing, and refuses the visa without ever deciding whether family violence occurred. The four aspects of the relationship that the law requires the Department to consider remain relevant: the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects, and the nature of the couple's commitment to each other. Our guide to partner visa relationship evidence explains how those aspects are assessed in ordinary applications.

An abusive relationship can still be a genuine relationship. Control, isolation and financial abuse can distort the evidence. Joint accounts may be controlled by one partner. Friends may have been kept away, so there are fewer witnesses. Photographs may be missing because the sponsor kept the devices. The procedural instruction recognises that people from some backgrounds may find it more difficult to provide evidence of both the genuineness of the relationship and the family violence, because of intersecting vulnerabilities. The applicant's relationship statement should explain these gaps honestly. The relationship evidence must be prepared with that reality in mind, using the guidance in preparing evidence of a genuine relationship.

The temporary visa grant and the permanent stage

Where a Subclass 820 or Subclass 309 visa has already been granted, the Department has already accepted, at that point, that the relationship was genuine. The procedural instruction says that decision makers considering the permanent Subclass 801 or Subclass 100 stage should take into account whether there is evidence which, had it been available to the officer who granted the temporary visa, would have led to refusal on the basis that the relationship was not genuine.

In practical terms, a temporary visa holder who separates after grant starts the partner visa family violence after separation claim from a stronger position than an applicant whose temporary visa has not yet been decided. The question for the permanent stage is usually whether the relationship remained genuine until it ended, and whether qualifying family violence occurred within that period. Documents from the original partner visa document checklist and the Subclass 820 evidence checklist often remain useful. Applicants at this stage often benefit from reading about the difference between the Subclass 820 and the Subclass 801 stages.

How do you document partner visa family violence after separation?

Documenting partner visa family violence after separation means proving three things together: that the relationship was genuine until it ended, when it ended, and that family violence, or part of it, occurred before that date. The evidence must meet the specific requirements of Division 1.5, which are stricter than many applicants expect.

Division 1.5 recognises two broad kinds of family violence claim. The first is a judicially determined claim, based on documents that come from an Australian court process, such as certain protection orders made after the alleged perpetrator had an opportunity to be heard, a Family Law Act injunction, or a conviction or finding of guilt. These are set out in subregulations 1.23(2) to (7). The second is a non-judicially determined claim under subregulations 1.23(8) and (9). The most common form requires a statutory declaration by the alleged victim that meets regulation 1.25, together with at least two items of evidence of different types from the list in the Minister's legislative instrument.

The statutory declaration required by regulation 1.25 is a true statutory declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959. It is not the same document as a Form 888 supporting statement, which is used for the social aspects of the relationship. The two must not be confused.

This article does not set out every type of prescribed evidence, because the right combination depends on the facts and because the requirements are technical. What matters for partner visa family violence after separation is that every item of evidence is checked against two questions: does it meet the legal form required, and does it show that the violence, or part of it, happened while the relationship existed?

Building a timeline that answers the timing question

The single most useful working document in a partner visa family violence after separation case is a clear timeline. It is prepared for the lawyer first, and it later shapes the applicant's own account and the way the evidence is presented.

A useful timeline records:

• when the relationship started, when the couple began living together, and when they married or registered the relationship, if they did;
• each incident or period of abuse, with the best available date or approximate period;
• each separation and each reconciliation;
• the date the applicant finally left, and the date the couple stopped sharing finances;
• any police attendance, medical treatment, counselling or support service contact, and the date of each; and
• every communication with the Department, including any sponsorship withdrawal or contact by the former partner.

The timeline does not need to be perfect. The procedural instruction accepts that trauma can lead to inconsistencies in memory. However, a timeline prepared early prevents the most damaging mistake in partner visa family violence after separation cases: giving the Department different end dates in different documents. It also makes it easier to respond if the Department later issues a section 56 request for more information.

Recording abuse that continued after the breakup

Abuse that continues after separation should be recorded carefully and safely. Useful practices include keeping screenshots of messages with the date and sender visible, keeping a dated record of incidents, keeping copies of any police event numbers, and storing copies somewhere the former partner cannot access. Applicants should not put themselves at risk to collect evidence.

When post separation conduct is documented, the record should, where it is true, connect the conduct to what happened during the relationship. A message after separation that repeats an earlier threat about the visa, or refers back to an earlier incident, can be more useful to a partner visa family violence after separation claim than a message that stands alone.

The independent expert process

If the claim is non-judicially determined and the decision maker is not satisfied that relevant family violence occurred, the decision maker must refer the claim to an independent expert. The independent expert's opinion is then taken to be correct. If the expert finds that relevant family violence has not occurred, the Department must give the applicant an opportunity to comment before refusing the visa. These steps make the quality of the original claim critical, and they are a common point at which applicants seek an immigration lawyer second opinion. A vague, formulaic or inconsistent statutory declaration invites a referral and makes the expert's task harder.

The term "relevant family violence" has a specific meaning in regulation 1.21. It covers conduct, whether actual or threatened, towards the alleged victim, certain family members, or certain property, that causes the alleged victim to reasonably fear for, or be reasonably apprehensive about, their own wellbeing or safety. It is not limited to physical harm. The procedural instruction confirms that psychological and financial abuse can fall within it.

How do you tell the Department that the relationship has ended?

An applicant whose relationship has ended must tell the Department of Home Affairs, and the usual way to do so is Form 1022, Notification of changes in circumstances. Section 104 of the Migration Act 1958 requires a visa applicant to notify the Department if their circumstances change so that information given in the application becomes incorrect. The end of the relationship on which the partner visa is based is the clearest example of such a change.

Telling the Department is not optional, and delaying it is risky. Failing to notify can raise questions about the applicant's honesty, and in serious cases can lead to concerns about incorrect information. Our guide to Form 1022 change of circumstances explains when the form must be lodged.

In a partner visa family violence after separation case, however, the notification must be handled with care. The way the separation is described, and the date given, will later be compared with the family violence claim. A notification that says only "we separated in March" and later a statutory declaration that describes abuse continuing through June may create an inconsistency that needs explaining. Many applicants find it safer to lodge the notification and the family violence claim together, or to lodge a brief notification and state that a family violence claim will follow, after advice. Applicants who lodged without help can still hire an immigration lawyer after lodgement. Applicants already working with a representative should confirm the representative's appointment through Form 956 before anything is sent.

Removing the former partner as authorised recipient

The procedural instruction warns decision makers to take care if the alleged perpetrator is still listed as the applicant's authorised recipient, or if an existing representative is still listed as the contact. The applicant must be given an opportunity to change this before correspondence about a family violence claim is sent.

In practice, the applicant should not wait for the Department to raise it. If the former partner set up the application, or has access to the ImmiAccount, the applicant should create their own account, change passwords on shared email accounts, and update the authorised recipient details. Our guide on how to create an ImmiAccount explains the basic process. These steps protect both the applicant's safety and the confidentiality of the partner visa family violence after separation claim.

Privacy and contact with the former partner

The Department's procedural instruction is protective of the applicant. It says no contact should be made with the alleged perpetrator about the alleged victim or the application once a family violence claim is made. Decision makers must not disclose the status of the application, or whether a family violence claim has been made, to any person without the applicant's written consent. Decision makers must never assume that the former partner knows the applicant is claiming that the relationship has ended, or that the applicant is seeking a permanent visa under the family violence provisions.

This protection is important for partner visa family violence after separation applicants who fear retaliation. It does not, however, prevent the former partner from contacting the Department. That is addressed in the next section.

What happens if the sponsor withdraws sponsorship?

A sponsor withdrawing sponsorship does not end a partner visa family violence after separation claim. Where the family violence provisions are met, the permanent visa can still be granted, because the sponsorship requirement does not apply in the same way once the relationship has ended and the applicant relies on the relationship cessation provisions.

Sponsors often withdraw sponsorship soon after separation, sometimes as an act of retaliation. The procedural instruction treats the withdrawal of sponsorship as one indicator that the relationship has ended, but it says decision makers are not bound to conclude that the relationship ended on the withdrawal date. They may find a different date having regard to when the couple stopped living together, when they told others, and when their finances were separated.

The same instruction lists threats to withdraw sponsorship, and actual withdrawal, as examples of immigration abuse. A withdrawal that follows years of threats about the visa can therefore form part of the pattern of conduct, not merely an administrative step.

When the former partner contacts the Department

Former partners frequently contact the Department after separation. Some deny that any abuse occurred. Some claim that the applicant only entered the relationship to obtain a visa. Some provide documents or messages selected to damage the applicant.

The procedural instruction tells decision makers that many alleged perpetrators contact the Department to protest their innocence, sometimes claiming in hindsight that the applicant never intended a genuine relationship. Decision makers must consider such information against the definition of relevant family violence and all other information, bearing in mind that the alleged perpetrator may not be an objective source. Decision makers are also told not to ask the alleged perpetrator whether family violence occurred.

If the Department intends to rely on adverse information from the former partner in refusing the visa, section 57 of the Migration Act 1958 generally requires that the applicant be given particulars of that information and an opportunity to comment. A response to a section 57 natural justice letter in a partner visa family violence after separation case must answer the allegation with evidence, not with anger. These letters set a short response period, and the applicant should obtain advice immediately.

Withdrawal of sponsorship and later sponsorships

A former sponsor's later conduct may also affect future applications. Limits on sponsoring more than one partner, and on sponsors with certain histories, are explained in our guide to partner visa sponsorship limitations. Those rules concern the sponsor, not the applicant's family violence claim, but they sometimes become relevant where the former partner quickly sponsors someone else. Further detail is in our article on sponsorship limitations for partner visas.

What happens to your bridging visa and processing after separation?

An onshore partner visa applicant who holds a bridging visa usually keeps it after separation, because a bridging visa granted in connection with a partner visa application generally remains in effect until the application is finally determined. Separation does not automatically end the bridging visa, and it does not automatically end the application. What changes is the legal basis on which the application can succeed.

Most onshore Subclass 820 applicants hold a Bridging Visa A while their application is processed. The conditions of that bridging visa, including any work rights, are explained in our guide to Subclass 820 work rights and bridging visas. Applicants in a partner visa family violence after separation situation should keep complying with every condition of the bridging visa while the claim is decided.

A Subclass 820 holder who separates after the temporary visa was granted continues to hold the Subclass 820 visa while the Subclass 801 stage is decided. The temporary visa does not end on separation. However, the Migration Act 1958 contains cancellation powers, including where the circumstances that permitted the grant of a visa no longer exist. Where a partner visa family violence after separation claim is properly made, the Department is assessing whether the permanent visa can be granted on the family violence basis. An applicant who receives any notice suggesting cancellation should obtain advice from visa cancellation lawyers immediately, because response periods are short.

Travelling while the claim is assessed

A Bridging Visa A does not usually allow the holder to return to Australia after travel. An applicant who needs to travel must generally obtain a Bridging Visa B before leaving. In a partner visa family violence after separation case, travel should be considered carefully before any booking is made. Leaving Australia can affect a pending onshore application, and the applicant may need to attend appointments or provide documents at short notice. Our overview of bridging visas in Australia explains the main types.

Processing after a family violence claim is made

Once a claim is made, the application is usually assessed by specialist officers. The procedural instruction describes a Family Violence Provisions Assessment Unit that assesses family violence claims once the relationship assessment has been completed. The Department may request further information, may refer a non-judicially determined claim to an independent expert, and must give the applicant an opportunity to comment on adverse information before refusing.

This article does not give processing time figures, because they change and vary widely between cases. Applicants can read general information about Subclass 820 processing, but a partner visa family violence after separation claim frequently follows a different path from an ordinary application.

Section 56 requests and extensions of time

If the Department invites the applicant to provide acceptable evidence and the evidence is not provided in the prescribed period, the procedural instruction says the decision maker may give more time under subsection 58(4) of the Migration Act 1958 or decide the application. Decision makers are encouraged to facilitate requests for extensions in family violence cases, given their sensitivity. That encouragement does not mean an extension will always be given. A request for more time should be made before the period ends, and should explain why more time is needed.

Subclass 300 holders and separation before marriage

A Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa holder whose relationship with the sponsor ended can rely on the family violence provisions for a Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visa, even if the couple never married. This is the result of the amendments that commenced on 1 July 2024.

The procedural instruction explains that the Subclass 820 visa has "time of application" family violence provisions as well as "time of decision" provisions. The time of application provisions deal with a relationship that ended before the Subclass 820 application was made, and they apply only where the applicant holds, or held, a Subclass 300 visa. Applicants who were never Subclass 300 holders rely only on the time of decision provisions, and for them the relationship must have existed when the Subclass 820 application was made.

That distinction is critical. An ordinary onshore applicant whose relationship ended before lodging a Subclass 820 application cannot use the family violence provisions to make a valid partner visa application on the basis of a relationship that had already ended. A Subclass 300 holder in the same position can. Prospective Marriage visa holders who are considering their options should take advice quickly, because their visa may be approaching its expiry and the timing of the Subclass 820 application matters. For the onshore stage itself, see our guide to the Subclass 820 partner visa.

For a Subclass 300 holder, the timing rule applies to the prospective spouse relationship. The family violence, or part of it, must have occurred while that relationship existed. Abuse that began only after the engagement ended will not satisfy the rule by itself.

Subclass 309 applicants who separate in Australia

A Subclass 309 applicant or holder can rely on the family violence provisions if the applicant entered Australia at some point after making the application. Following the 2024 amendments, the applicant may be in or outside Australia when the family violence claim is made.

This often arises where the applicant arrives in Australia on the Subclass 309 visa, lives with the sponsor, and the relationship then ends because of abuse. The permanent Subclass 100 stage can still be granted on the family violence basis. The same timing rule applies. The violence, or part of it, must have occurred while the relationship existed. Applicants in this situation should read the Subclass 309 partner visa page for the general requirements of the offshore pathway.

Common mistakes in partner visa family violence after separation cases

The most common mistakes in partner visa family violence after separation cases are avoidable. Each of them can damage a claim that should otherwise have been accepted.

Giving the Department an end date without thinking it through. The first date the Department receives is often treated as the starting point. An end date placed too early can move key incidents outside the relationship period.

Relying only on post separation conduct. Threats, stalking and financial abuse after the breakup are relevant, but they cannot satisfy the timing rule alone. The claim must show that the family violence, or part of it, occurred while the relationship existed.

Ignoring the relationship evidence. The Department decides whether the relationship was genuine before it looks at the family violence. A claim that proves the abuse but not the relationship will fail.

Using the wrong type of document. Division 1.5 prescribes the forms of evidence that can be used. A letter or report that does not meet the legal requirements may not count, however sincere it is. Applicants should also be aware of common reasons partner visas get refused.

Leaving the former partner with access to the application. If the former partner remains the authorised recipient or controls the ImmiAccount, confidential material may reach them.

Waiting too long. The procedural instruction recognises that applicants may have good reasons for delay. Even so, a long gap between the separation and the claim may be examined, and the explanation for it must be clear.

Assuming a sponsorship withdrawal ends everything. It does not. A properly made partner visa family violence after separation claim can continue after the sponsor withdraws.

What if the Department refuses the visa?

If the Department refuses a partner visa after a family violence claim, the applicant may be able to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal for merits review. The ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. The time limit to apply is short, it runs from the date the decision is notified, and it is strictly applied. Anyone who has just received a refusal should act immediately.

The ART reviews the decision afresh. It can consider new evidence about the relationship, the end date and the family violence. A refusal in a partner visa family violence after separation case may rest on the finding that the relationship was not genuine, on the timing rule, on the form of the evidence, or on an independent expert's opinion. Each requires a different response, and the common grounds are explained in our guide to Subclass 820 visa refusals. Our guides to partner visa refusals, partner visa appeal options and what to expect at the ART explain the process. Broader visa refusal advice is also available.

Matters the Tribunal has remitted on these issues

The Tribunal has remitted partner visa decisions where these issues arose. Remittal means the Tribunal sent the matter back to the Department to be reconsidered with a direction or finding. The following matters were recorded as remitted, and only the issue stated is described here:

• Siyad (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2129, a Subclass 820 matter in which the issues recorded were a relationship that had ceased, a genuine and continuing relationship before the family violence, coercive control, and joint utility and tenancy accounts.
• 2305121 (Migration) [2025] ARTA 455, a Subclass 820 matter concerning a genuine and continuing relationship before the relationship ceased, a joint bank account, social and government recognition of the relationship, and a non-judicially determined claim of family violence.
• 2211197 (Migration) [2026] ARTA 228, a Subclass 820 matter concerning a genuine and continuing relationship, a valid marriage, the four aspects of the relationship, and verbal, physical and sexual abuse.
• Nugrohowati (Migration) [2023] AATA 2856, a Subclass 820 court remittal concerning a relationship that had broken down, a claim of family violence, and whether the applicant and sponsor were in a de facto relationship.
• Javed (Migration) [2021] AATA 3007, a Subclass 820 court remittal concerning a genuine spousal relationship that had ceased, a family violence claim, and evidence tested before a court.

These matters show that the issues discussed in this article, especially whether the relationship was genuine before it ended, are often decisive on review. They do not predict the outcome of any other case. Where an error of law is involved, judicial review may also need to be considered, and a visa appeal lawyer can advise on which pathway applies.

Safety first: steps before any visa action

Safety comes before any visa step in a partner visa family violence after separation case. If you are in immediate danger, call 000. The Department of Home Affairs also refers people to 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 for confidential counselling and information.

Practical safety steps often overlap with the visa claim, but they must not be driven by it. Applicants should consider:

• keeping copies of passports, visa grant letters and key documents in a safe place outside the home;
• changing passwords for email, ImmiAccount, banking and phone accounts the former partner may know;
• turning off location sharing and checking devices for tracking applications;
• telling trusted people about the situation; and
• obtaining legal advice about protection orders and family law issues where children are involved.

No applicant should remain in a dangerous situation because they fear for their visa. The family violence provisions exist so that people do not have to choose between their safety and their migration status. That is the purpose of partner visa family violence after separation protections in the Migration Regulations 1994.

How My Migration Lawyers helps with partner visa family violence after separation

My Migration Lawyers acts for partner visa applicants whose relationships have ended because of, or alongside, family violence, and handles partner visa family violence after separation matters as a regular part of its partner visa practice. These are complex cases. They combine the law on genuine relationships, the technical evidence rules in Division 1.5, the timing rule, and the practical realities of safety and privacy. The firm is experienced in managing all of them together and is well placed to take on difficult matters.

When My Migration Lawyers is engaged on a partner visa family violence after separation matter, the work typically includes:

• reviewing the full immigration history and the application file to establish exactly what the Department has already been told about the relationship and its end date;
• building a detailed chronology with the client that separates conduct during the relationship from conduct after separation, and identifies where the two connect;
• advising on the timing and wording of the Form 1022 notification, and changing the authorised recipient and contact arrangements before any family violence material is lodged;
• assessing which Division 1.5 pathway applies, and checking every proposed document against the prescribed requirements before it is lodged;
• preparing the relationship evidence so that the Department can be satisfied the relationship was genuine until it ended;
• presenting the client's own account, in the client's own words, in the form the law requires;
• responding to sponsorship withdrawals, contact by the former partner, section 56 requests and section 57 letters; and
• managing the bridging visa position and, where needed, review before the Administrative Review Tribunal.

The firm's Principal Lawyer, Weiwei Zhang, oversees the firm's partner visa work. You can learn more about My Migration Lawyers and the firm's approach to partner visa matters. The firm acts for clients across Australia, including through its Sydney partner visa lawyers, Melbourne partner visa lawyers, Brisbane partner visa lawyers, Perth partner visa lawyers, Adelaide partner visa lawyers, Canberra partner visa lawyers, Gold Coast partner visa lawyers, Hobart partner visa lawyers and Parramatta partner visa lawyers. Consultations are held by video, so clients do not need to travel. Readers comparing firms can see our guides to the best partner visa lawyer in Australia and to what happens in an immigration lawyer consultation.

If your relationship has ended and you need advice on partner visa family violence after separation, Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers. You can also call My Migration Lawyers on 1300 040 300.