Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship: The Legal Test Explained

The partner visa genuine and continuing relationship requirement is the legal test at the centre of every Australian partner visa. For a married couple, it is set out in section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 and assessed under regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994. If the Department of Home Affairs is not satisfied that the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test is met, the visa is refused, however strong the rest of the application may be.

Most material about partner visas talks about evidence: what to upload, how many photographs, which bills. That matters, but it puts the cart before the horse. Evidence only has value when you understand the legal question it is meant to answer. This article explains that question. It sets out each element of the statutory definition, the four aspects the decision maker must consider, when the test is applied, how temporary separations are treated, what does not defeat the test and what raises concern. For the practical side of building the evidence, read the companion guides on proving your relationship is genuine and preparing evidence of a genuine relationship.

The focus here is on married couples applying onshore for the Subclass 820 partner visa and the Subclass 801 visa that follows it. The same test applies to the offshore Subclass 309 visa and the Subclass 100 visa. For the wider picture of every pathway, see the complete guide to partner visas in Australia.

What Is the Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship Test?

The partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test is the statutory requirement that the applicant and the sponsoring partner are in a real, ongoing and exclusive relationship that meets the definition of "spouse" in section 5F of the Migration Act 1958, or the definition of "de facto partner" in section 5CB. It is not a policy preference or an informal impression. It is part of the legal definition the applicant must satisfy to be granted the visa.

Subclause 820.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations provides for an applicant who is the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor. Subsection 5(1) of the Act gives "spouse" the meaning in section 5F. So when the Department asks whether the relationship is genuine and continuing, it is really asking whether the applicant is a "spouse" in the statutory sense. Departmental policy for the Subclass 820 confirms that the relationship requirements are split between the Act and the Regulations: section 5F and regulation 1.15A for married couples, and section 5CB, regulation 1.09A and regulation 2.03A for de facto couples.

Three points flow from this. First, the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test is a question of satisfaction. The decision maker must be satisfied, on the material before them, that the definition is met. Second, the burden of producing that material sits with the applicant and sponsor. Third, the test is applied to the relationship as it actually is, not to a checklist of documents. A couple can provide a large volume of paper and still fail if the paper does not show a shared life. A couple with fewer documents can succeed if what they provide is consistent and persuasive.

The same definition is used across the partner program, including the Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa once the couple marries and applies onshore. Applicants who are still deciding which pathway fits their circumstances can start with the Subclass 820 visa overview and the onshore requirements guide.

The Four Elements of a Spouse Relationship Under Section 5F

Section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 provides that two people are in a married relationship only if all four conditions in subsection 5F(2) are met. Paragraph 5F(2)(a) requires a valid marriage. Paragraph 5F(2)(b) requires a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others. Paragraph 5F(2)(c) requires the relationship to be genuine and continuing. Paragraph 5F(2)(d) requires the couple to live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

Departmental policy on the assessment of spouse relationships directs decision makers to assess each of these legislative requirements separately, and to take care not to confuse one with another. That instruction is important. The partner visa genuine and continuing relationship requirement in paragraph 5F(2)(c) is one element of four. A couple may have a valid marriage and live together, yet fail paragraph 5F(2)(c) because the relationship is not genuine. Equally, a genuine couple may fail paragraph 5F(2)(a) if their marriage is not recognised. Each element must be addressed on its own terms.

Paragraph 5F(2)(a): a valid marriage

The couple must be married to each other under a marriage that is recognised as valid for the purposes of the Act. Section 12 of the Act generally mirrors the Marriage Act 1961 in deciding whether a marriage is recognised, whether it was solemnised in Australia or overseas. A foreign marriage that is not recognised in the country where it took place will not be recognised in Australia.

Some marriages are not recognised for migration purposes even if they were valid where they took place. These include certain polygamous marriages, marriages between people within a prohibited degree of relationship, and certain underage marriages. The Act also excludes marriages recognised only under the common law rules of private international law. A proxy marriage may be recognised where the law of the place of marriage permits it, the marriage followed that law and both parties gave real consent. Since 9 December 2017, the Marriage Act has recognised same-sex marriages, including foreign same-sex marriages that were valid where they were solemnised. Same-sex couples can read more on the same-sex partner visa page.

Policy notes that because the validity of the marriage is an issue of fact, the four aspects in regulation 1.15A do not have to be applied to paragraph 5F(2)(a). If a marriage is not recognised, the relationship is then assessed against the de facto definition in section 5CB instead. A refusal based only on an invalid marriage is therefore not the end of the analysis. It is a change of legal category.

Paragraph 5F(2)(b): mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others

The couple must have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others. Two words carry most of the weight. "Mutual" means the commitment must exist on both sides. A relationship where one partner is committed and the other is using the relationship for a visa does not meet the test. "Exclusion" means there can be only one ongoing partner relationship.

This is why previous relationships matter. Where either partner was married before, the Department usually asks for evidence that the earlier relationship has ended. In a polygamous situation, only the first marriage can be recognised, and neither party can satisfy paragraph 5F(2)(b) while a concurrent marital relationship continues. A partner visa genuine and continuing relationship cannot coexist with another live partner relationship.

Paragraph 5F(2)(c): the relationship is genuine and continuing

This is the element most people mean when they speak about the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test. "Genuine" means the relationship is what it claims to be: a real marriage entered into and maintained for its own sake, not a relationship of convenience. "Continuing" means it is still on foot. A relationship that was genuine at one point but has since ended does not satisfy paragraph 5F(2)(c) at the time it is assessed.

The partner visa genuine and continuing relationship requirement is assessed by considering all the circumstances of the relationship, including the four aspects in regulation 1.15A, which are explained below. Genuineness is not proved by any single document. It is inferred from the pattern of the couple's life together: how they met, how the relationship developed, how they manage money and a home, how they present themselves to others, and how they see the future.

Paragraph 5F(2)(d): living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis

The couple must live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. The wording is deliberate. It does not require the couple to share an address on every day of the relationship. It requires that any separation is temporary. Policy states that an applicant cannot meet this element if they have never lived with their claimed spouse and cannot satisfy the decision maker that they intend to live together in the future. The onus is on the applicant to show that any separation is temporary. There is no prescribed timeframe in which the couple must live together, and each case is considered on its facts.

The reverse situation is also recognised. Policy notes that a married couple can be separated even while living at the same address, if they have organised their lives separately and the links characteristic of a marriage have ended. Sharing a roof does not prove the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship requirement on its own.

Is the De Facto Test Different From the Spouse Test?

No, not in substance. Section 5CB of the Act sets out a parallel definition for de facto couples. Paragraph 5CB(2)(a) requires a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others. Paragraph 5CB(2)(b) requires a genuine and continuing relationship. Paragraph 5CB(2)(c) requires the couple to live together or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. Paragraph 5CB(2)(d) requires that they are not related by family. Regulation 1.09A prescribes the same four aspects as regulation 1.15A.

The main structural differences are that a de facto couple must not be married to each other, and regulation 2.03A adds a minimum age requirement and, for certain visas, a requirement that the de facto relationship existed for at least 12 months before the application unless an exception applies. Policy describes migration law as giving equal recognition to married and de facto relationships. This article does not cover the de facto rules in detail. Couples in that position should read the guides to the de facto partner visa and the 12-month de facto requirement.

One practical point connects the two definitions. Policy confirms that if a de facto couple marries between application and decision, the time of decision assessment is made under section 5F, and the regulation 2.03A criteria no longer apply. Either way, the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test sits at the heart of the assessment.

Common Myths About the Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship Test

Most misunderstandings about the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test come from treating it as a document count rather than a legal definition. The following myths appear again and again in applications that run into trouble.

Myth 1: a marriage certificate proves the relationship. It does not. A marriage certificate addresses paragraph 5F(2)(a) only. The partner visa genuine and continuing relationship requirement in paragraph 5F(2)(c) is a separate element and must be shown by evidence of the couple's shared life.

Myth 2: more documents always help. Volume is not the test. A large file full of repetitive photographs and screenshots can obscure the evidence that matters. The partner visa genuine and continuing relationship assessment rewards evidence that is relevant to the four aspects, independent where possible, and consistent.

Myth 3: every aspect must be strong. The law requires the four aspects to be considered, not met. A couple who keep separate finances for cultural or practical reasons can still satisfy the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test if the other evidence shows a real shared life.

Myth 4: once lodged, the relationship is no longer assessed. The relationship is assessed at application, at decision and again at the Subclass 801 stage. A couple should keep building evidence throughout processing, as the onshore processing guide explains.

Myth 5: a genuine relationship fixes other problems. It does not. A genuine relationship does not cure a no further stay condition, a section 48 bar or Schedule 3. Those are separate legal questions, explained in the articles on visitor visa holders applying onshore, the Schedule 3 criteria and the Schedule 3 waiver service. Departmental policy states that a genuine relationship and separation hardship are generally not, by themselves, compelling reasons to waive Schedule 3.

Myth 6: the test is the same as the sponsor check. The sponsor's eligibility is assessed separately, including any sponsorship limitations. Satisfying the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test does not answer those questions, and the reverse is also true.

Couples weighing whether to prepare the application themselves can read the comparison of a partner visa lawyer and doing it yourself and the guide on when to use an immigration lawyer for a partner visa.

What Are the Four Aspects of the Relationship the Department Must Consider?

For a Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309 or Subclass 100 application, subregulation 1.15A(2) requires the decision maker to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship, including the four matters set out in subregulation 1.15A(3). Those four aspects of the relationship are the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects, and the nature of the persons' commitment to each other. They are the lens through which the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test is applied. Every partner visa genuine and continuing relationship decision for these four subclasses must engage with them.

Policy is explicit that the four aspects are circumstances to be considered, not Schedule 2 criteria that must be satisfied. They are not the only matters that can be considered, the relationship may show other characteristics, and the examples listed under each aspect are not exhaustive. They are simply the key elements the law has codified for assessing whether a relationship meets the definition.

Financial aspects of the relationship

Paragraph 1.15A(3)(a) directs attention to the financial aspects of the relationship. Policy gives examples: joint ownership of real estate or other major assets, joint liabilities, the extent of any pooling of financial resources, whether one partner owes a legal obligation in respect of the other, and the basis on which day-to-day household expenses are shared.

Policy also makes a practical observation about bank accounts. A joint account that has been operated with reasonable frequency over a reasonable period carries more weight than a recently opened account with few transactions. Policy recognises that some couples keep separate accounts, and says that in both joint and personal accounts there should be evidence of income or spending on shared costs such as rent, a mortgage or utilities. In other words, the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship assessment looks for a financial life that is actually shared, not a joint account opened for the application.

Examples of legal obligations between partners include acting as guarantor for the other's loan or holding a power of attorney. Being nominated as a beneficiary of a will or superannuation is also referred to in policy as evidence of long-term intention.

The nature of the household

Paragraph 1.15A(3)(b) concerns the nature of the household. Policy lists shared responsibility for the care and support of children, the living arrangements of the couple, and any sharing of responsibility for housework. Living arrangements may be shown by joint ownership of residential property, joint leases, rental receipts, joint utility accounts and correspondence addressed to both partners at the same address.

The household aspect is about how the couple runs a home together, and it is often the clearest documentary proof of a partner visa genuine and continuing relationship. A lease in both names is helpful. So is evidence that both partners actually live there and share the work of the household. Where a couple lives with extended family or with other tenants, that is not a problem in itself, but the evidence should make clear that the couple lives as a couple within that arrangement. The partner visa document checklist and the Subclass 820 evidence checklist list the documents that usually address this aspect.

Social aspects of the relationship

Paragraph 1.15A(3)(c) concerns the social aspects. Policy refers to whether the couple represents themselves to others as married, the opinion of friends and acquaintances about the relationship, and any basis on which the couple plans and undertakes joint social activities. Declaring the relationship to government bodies and institutions, and having those declarations accepted, is one example. Joint membership of groups, joint travel and joint plans for the future are others.

Policy also contains an important qualification. Decision makers should take into account the extent to which the laws or traditions of the applicant's home country may discourage a couple from openly admitting the relationship. A couple whose families do not yet know about the relationship is not automatically failing the social aspect. The reason for the limited public profile must be explained, and the explanation must be consistent.

The opinion of friends and family is usually given through Form 888 statements, which are explained later in this article. For guidance on who can provide one, see the article on who can make a Form 888 statement.

The nature of the commitment

Paragraph 1.15A(3)(d) concerns the nature of the persons' commitment to each other. Policy says this requires an assessment of the mutuality of the commitment, having regard to the duration of the relationship, the length of time the couple has lived together, the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other, and whether they see the relationship continuing for the long term.

Mutuality may be tested by the partners' knowledge of each other's personal circumstances, such as background and family situation, which can be explored at interview. It may also be shown by the extent to which the partners have combined their affairs and provided for each other. Policy states that there is no specific length of time prescribed for this factor. The length of the marriage is considered, but alongside every other part of the commitment aspect. This is the aspect where the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test is most personal, and where the couple's own account carries the most weight.

How Does the Department Weigh Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship Evidence?

The Department weighs the evidence as a whole. It does not count how many of the four aspects are satisfied and how many are not. Policy states that the assessment must not be based on comparing the number of matters satisfied against the number not satisfied. The decision maker must consider the relationship against all four aspects, take into account any other relevant information, and decide whether, on balance, the requirements of subsection 5F(2) are met.

This has real consequences for how the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship requirement works in practice. A couple who have only recently married may have limited financial history, but strong evidence of commitment and social recognition. A couple living in a household shared with relatives may have fewer joint household bills, but a long history of pooled finances. Neither is fatal. The question is always what the whole picture shows.

The de facto policy puts the same point even more directly. It says it would be an error of law to refuse a partner visa on the basis that one or more of the four prescribed matters is "not met", because the regulation requires the matters to be considered, not met. Policy on spouse relationships states that a refusal on the ground that no spousal relationship exists must address all four matters, unless the refusal is based only on the marriage not being valid.

Decision makers decide the weight to give each piece of evidence. They can give more weight to independent, long-standing records and less to recent or self-serving material. That is why the timing and source of documents matter. A utility bill from two years ago that happens to show both names at the same address often says more than a stack of recent photographs.

The assessment is also informed by everything else the Department knows. Information to be considered may include documents lodged with the application, Form 888 statements, interviews with the applicant or sponsor, and adverse information from third parties. The Department may send a section 56 request for more information or, where it holds adverse information, a section 57 natural justice letter. Both are opportunities to address doubts about the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship before a decision is made.

Applicants who lodged their own application and now face questions about the relationship can read about hiring a lawyer after lodgement and about getting a second opinion on an existing file.

When Is the Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship Assessed?

The partner visa genuine and continuing relationship is assessed twice for an onshore Subclass 820 application: at the time of application and again at the time of decision. For the permanent Subclass 801 stage, it is assessed again as a fresh question. A relationship that met the test on the day of lodgement but has since broken down will not satisfy the later criteria.

At the time of application

The Subclass 820 time of application criteria in subclause 820.211(2) require the applicant to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor when the application is made. That means the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship must already exist on the day of lodgement. The Department cannot be satisfied that a relationship met section 5F at lodgement if the evidence shows it had not yet developed into a committed shared life at that point. Tribunal decisions show that "limited evidence at the time of application" is a common basis for refusal, and that the issue can be revisited on review.

At the time of decision

Paragraph 820.221(1)(a) requires the applicant to continue to meet the requirements at the time of decision. Policy allows a decision maker to treat this as satisfied without further enquiry if there is no contrary evidence and no significant time has passed since the relationship was assessed. Otherwise, the decision maker is expected to take reasonable steps to confirm there has been no material change. For couples whose application has been pending for some time, updated evidence is often requested or should be offered.

At the Subclass 801 stage

Policy for the Subclass 801 visa states that applicants must show they continue to meet the definition of spouse or de facto partner, and that this is a fresh assessment based on the evidence before the decision maker at the time of decision. The decision may rely on documents provided by the couple, or may involve further enquiries such as interviewing both partners. Paragraph 801.221(2)(d) generally requires at least two years to have passed since the combined application was made before the Subclass 801 can be granted, unless an exception applies. The Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 comparison explains how the two stages fit together, and the processing time guide explains the wait.

Notifying changes

Section 104 of the Act requires an applicant to notify the Department in writing of a change in circumstances that makes an answer in the application incorrect. That includes the end of the relationship. The change is usually notified using Form 1022. Where the relationship has ended, the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test can no longer be met, but other pathways may exist, including the family violence provisions. The article on relationship breakdown during a Subclass 820 application explains the options.

Temporary Separations and the Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship

A temporary separation does not defeat the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test. Paragraph 5F(2)(d) is satisfied if the couple lives together or does not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. Policy recognises that physical separation for work or other reasons does not necessarily mean the parties have separated in a legal sense.

The decision maker will look at two things. The first is the reason for the separation. Common reasons include one partner working in another city or country, one partner completing study, caring for a sick parent, waiting for a visa, or being unable to travel because of border or travel restrictions. The second is whether the separation, and the way the couple behaved during it, is consistent with a mutual commitment to each other. Policy states that where a couple claims a separation is not permanent, decision makers need to consider the reasons for it and whether those reasons are consistent with mutual commitment.

Evidence that supports a temporary separation, and therefore a continuing partner visa genuine and continuing relationship, includes regular communication, visits where possible, financial support flowing between the partners, continued joint commitments such as a lease or loan, and clear plans to reunite. Evidence that undermines it includes long silences, no plan for living together, and contradictory accounts of why the couple is apart. The onus sits with the applicant to show the separation is temporary.

The Department's policy for married couples states that the onus is on the applicant to show they will, at some point in the future, live with their spouse. Couples who are about to be apart for a period should document the reason at the time it happens, not reconstruct it later. Where the applicant is overseas, the Subclass 309 visa is assessed under the same partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test.

A separation of this kind must be distinguished from a breakdown. If either partner has formed the intention that the relationship is over and has acted on it, the couple has separated, even if they still share an address. Policy cites section 49 of the Family Law Act 1975 on this point. Divorce is not required to end a marriage for migration purposes. A separation that is permanent ends the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship, whatever the marriage certificate says.

What Does Not Defeat the Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship Test?

An age gap, a short courtship, an arranged marriage, different cultural backgrounds, different religions and a lack of shared language are not grounds for refusal in themselves. None of them appears in section 5F or regulation 1.15A as a disqualifying factor. The partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test asks whether the relationship is real, exclusive and ongoing, not whether it looks like a typical relationship.

These features can, however, prompt closer questions. The decision maker may want to understand how the couple met, how the relationship developed, how they communicate, and why they decided to marry when they did. That is a legitimate line of enquiry. The answer is not to hide the feature. The answer is to explain it honestly and consistently, supported by evidence.

Age gap

A significant age difference is not mentioned anywhere in the statutory test. It may lead the decision maker to look more carefully at the nature of the commitment and the reasons for the relationship. A clear account of how the relationship formed and how the couple supports each other in practice usually answers that concern.

Short courtship

Policy for married couples states that there is no specific length of time prescribed for the relationship. The duration is one consideration within the nature of the commitment, assessed alongside the others. A couple who married within months of meeting is not barred from meeting the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test. One of the Tribunal decisions summarised below concerned a couple who married two months after meeting.

Arranged marriages

Policy states that the fact a marriage was arranged by relatives, friends or a broker does not itself affect recognition of the marriage, unless one party did not give real consent. Policy also directs decision makers to take particular care in assessing whether an arranged marriage meets paragraphs 5F(2)(b) and (c). For couples in an arranged marriage, the evidence should show the relationship that has developed since the marriage, not only the arrangement.

Cultural and religious practices

Different cultures express commitment in different ways. Some couples do not live together before marriage. Some do not show affection in public. Some families do not openly acknowledge the relationship for a period. Policy expressly asks decision makers to consider whether the laws or traditions of the applicant's home country discourage open admission of the relationship. A couple of different religions, or a couple whose families disapprove, can still meet the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship requirement. What matters is that the relationship statement explains the practice and the evidence fits the explanation.

Living with family or others

Couples who live with parents, extended family or flatmates are not disqualified. One Tribunal decision listed below involved shared accommodation with other co-tenants. The evidence should show the couple living as a couple within the shared arrangement.

What Raises Concern About a Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship?

Inconsistency raises the most concern. When the dates, addresses, events or explanations in the application, the relationship statement, the Form 888 statements and the interview answers do not match, the decision maker is entitled to doubt the account as a whole. Inconsistency is more damaging than a thin file, because it goes to credibility.

Common sources of inconsistency include:

• Different dates for key events. The date the couple met, started the relationship, moved in or married is given differently in different documents.
• Residential history that does not match. The addresses in the application form, the Form 80 personal particulars form and the supporting documents do not line up.
• Undisclosed history. A previous relationship, a previous sponsorship or the way the couple met is not disclosed and later comes to light.
• Interview answers that differ. The partners give different accounts of daily life, family members, or recent events when interviewed separately.
• Form 888 statements that are generic or copied. Several witnesses use the same words, or describe events they could not have seen.

Other matters can also raise concern: a relationship that began shortly after a visa refusal or close to the expiry of a visa, very limited time spent together, a sponsor with a history of sponsoring partners, or adverse information from a third party. None of these is decisive by itself. Each is a reason for the decision maker to look harder at the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship evidence.

The practical lesson is that the application should tell one coherent story, from the first form to the last document. Errors happen, and an honest correction made early is far better than a discrepancy found by the Department. The article on why Subclass 820 visas are refused and the guide to why partner visas get refused describe the most common problems.

The Relationship Statement and Form 888 Statements as Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship Evidence

There is one relationship statement in a partner visa application. It is the couple's own account of the relationship: how they met, how the relationship developed, how they share their lives under each of the four aspects, any periods apart and their plans for the future. It is the couple's own evidence, written in their own words and checked by them for accuracy. The guide to the partner visa relationship statement explains how it is usually structured.

The four aspects are not separate statements. They are aspects of the relationship that the decision maker assesses. A well-prepared relationship statement simply makes sure the couple's account addresses each of them, so that the decision maker can see how the documents fit the story. The statement does not replace documentary evidence. It explains it.

Form 888 statements are supporting evidence from people who know the couple. They go to the social aspect of the relationship, and in particular to the opinion of friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship. Policy refers to statements from parents, family members, relatives and friends, and notes that the Department provides Form 888 for partner and prospective marriage applications. Each witness should describe what they personally know about the relationship, in their own words, with specific examples. For guidance, see the article on Form 888 example answers and common mistakes.

The relationship statement is often the first document a decision maker reads when assessing the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship. Neither the relationship statement nor the Form 888 statements prove the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship on their own. They are weighed with the documents and any interview. Their value lies in being specific, honest and consistent with everything else on the file.

What Tribunal Decisions Show About the Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship

Tribunal decisions show that refusals on the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship ground can be overturned on merits review when the full circumstances are put properly before the Tribunal. In each decision listed below, the Tribunal set aside the Department's refusal and remitted the matter, which means it sent the application back to the Department to reconsider in accordance with its directions. A remittal is not a grant. Decisions cited as AATA were made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) replaced it on 14 October 2024. Decisions cited as ARTA were made by the ART. Each decision is described only by the issues it was reported on:

• Wang (Migration) [2024] ARTA 822 (Subclass 820): genuine and continuing relationship; validly married two months after meeting; financial, household and social aspects of the relationship and nature of commitment; future plans.
• 2207905 (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1275 (Subclass 820): genuine relationship at time of application; validly married in home country; financial, household and social aspects of the relationship and nature of commitment.
• Tran (Migration) [2023] AATA 3870 (Subclass 820): genuine and continuing relationship; validly married; financial, household and social aspects of the relationship and nature of commitment; limited evidence at time of application.
• Le (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2423 (Subclass 820): genuine and continuing relationship; incorrect residential information in the visa application; joint bank account; shared education expenses.
• Wong (Migration) [2023] AATA 685 (Subclass 820): parties validly married; mutual commitment to a shared life together; parties live together in a spousal relationship; a genuine and continuing relationship.
• Ho (Migration) [2023] AATA 405 (Subclass 820): a court remittal concerning a genuine and continuing relationship; financial pooling; shared accommodation with other co-tenants.
• Salise (Migration) [2024] AATA 1932 (Subclass 820): genuine and continuing relationship; circumstances of meeting and progress of the relationship; previous visits on tourist visas; validly married.
• Le (Migration) [2023] AATA 3496 (Subclass 820): genuine and continuing relationship; validly married; financial, household and social aspects of the relationship and nature of commitment; young Australian citizen child.

Three themes run through these partner visa genuine and continuing relationship decisions. First, the Tribunal works through the statutory elements and the four aspects of the relationship, as the law requires. Second, features that may have concerned the Department, such as a short courtship, limited evidence at the time of application, an error in the application or a shared household, were examined in context rather than treated as decisive. Third, the outcome turned on the quality and consistency of the evidence about the couple's actual life together.

These decisions do not establish that any particular fact will be accepted in a later case. Every partner visa genuine and continuing relationship assessment depends on its own evidence. They do show that a refusal is not always the final word.

What Happens If the Department Is Not Satisfied?

If the Department is not satisfied that the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test is met, the Subclass 820 application is refused, and the associated Subclass 801 application is refused with it. The refusal letter sets out the reasons and the review rights.

A refused onshore applicant can generally apply to the ART for merits review. The deadline is short, it runs from notification of the decision, it is strictly applied and the Tribunal cannot extend it. The refusal letter states the deadline and should be read on the day it arrives. For a Subclass 820 refusal, the review applicant must be in Australia when the review application is made. A government charge is payable to the Tribunal. The ART considers the matter afresh and can take new evidence, which is why a well-prepared review often focuses on filling the gaps the Department identified in the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship evidence.

The guides to partner visa refusal appeal options and what to expect at ART review explain the process. The partner visa refusals page, the visa refusals service page and the visa appeal lawyer guide describe how review matters are run. If the Tribunal affirms the refusal, any further challenge is limited to legal error, as explained on the judicial review page. During review, the applicant's bridging visa position also needs attention, as explained in the guide to bridging visas in Australia.

How My Migration Lawyers Helps With the Partner Visa Genuine and Continuing Relationship Test

My Migration Lawyers approaches the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test as a legal question first and an evidence exercise second. The firm identifies what section 5F and regulation 1.15A require in the couple's circumstances, then works with the couple to present their own account and their own evidence in the form the law requires.

In practice, the work on a partner visa genuine and continuing relationship matter follows these steps:

• Confirm the legal category. The firm checks whether the marriage is recognised under section 12 of the Act and the Marriage Act 1961, whether any earlier relationship has ended, and whether the couple should be assessed as spouses or de facto partners.
• Map the relationship against the four elements and four aspects. The firm reviews the couple's history against paragraphs 5F(2)(a) to (d) and the four aspects in subregulation 1.15A(3), and identifies where the evidence is strong and where it needs explanation.
• Address the features that prompt questions. Where there is an age gap, a short courtship, an arranged marriage, a cultural practice or a period of separation, the firm makes sure it is explained clearly and supported, rather than left for the Department to discover.
• Check consistency across the file. Dates, addresses and events are cross-checked across the application form, Form 80, the relationship statement and the Form 888 statements before anything is lodged. The firm obtains the client's visa history itself from VEVO and Department records.
• Prepare the relationship statement and witness evidence. The firm helps the couple set out their own account in a structured relationship statement, which they review and correct, and guides witnesses on what a useful Form 888 statement covers.
• Respond to requests, interviews and refusals. Where the Department sends a section 56 request or a section 57 letter, or a refusal issues, the firm responds within the time allowed and, where appropriate, lodges and runs ART review.

My Migration Lawyers acts in many partner visa matters where the genuineness of the relationship is in issue, including couples with limited joint documents, couples who have spent long periods apart, couples whose applications contain errors, and couples who have already been refused. These cases are often complex, and the firm is equipped to handle them. Matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. No outcome can be promised in any migration matter, but a clear assessment of how the partner visa genuine and continuing relationship test applies to your circumstances is the best starting point.

The firm acts for couples across Australia, including through its partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. The firm's immigration lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth also advise on partner visa genuine and continuing relationship issues where they overlap with other visa history. Consultations are held by video, so location is no barrier. You can learn more about My Migration Lawyers and its partner visa lawyers, or read what to expect from a consultation.

If you are preparing an application, have received a request about your relationship, or have been refused, obtain advice before you respond.

Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your partner visa genuine and continuing relationship position assessed. You can also call 1300 040 300.