Partner Visa Health Refusal: Your Options

What is a partner visa health refusal?

A partner visa health refusal is a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse a partner visa because a health criterion was not met. In almost every case the criterion is public interest criterion 4007, often called PIC 4007, which sits in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994. A partner visa health refusal can affect an onshore Subclass 820 visa, an offshore Subclass 309 visa, the permanent Subclass 801 and Subclass 100 stages, and the Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa.

The refusal does not mean the Department doubts the relationship. Many couples who receive a partner visa health refusal have a relationship that has already been accepted as genuine and continuing. The problem is a separate criterion. The applicant, or someone in the applicant's family unit, has been assessed by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth as having a disease or condition that does not meet the health requirement, and the delegate did not waive that outcome.

That distinction shapes everything that follows. A partner visa health refusal is not fixed by more photographs, more relationship evidence or more Form 888 supporting statements. It is fixed, if it can be fixed, by testing the medical opinion, the way the waiver was handled and the procedure the Department followed. For the wider picture of how refusals are reviewed, see our page on partner visa refusals and the complete partner visa guide.

This article is written for people who have already received a partner visa health refusal, or who have received a letter warning that one is coming. It explains which health criterion applies, what the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth decides, what the waiver involves, the errors that commonly appear in these decisions, and the options at the Administrative Review Tribunal and beyond. It does not give medical advice. Questions about diagnosis, treatment or prognosis belong with the applicant's own treating doctors.

Which health criterion applies to partner visas: PIC 4005 or PIC 4007?

PIC 4007 applies to every partner visa subclass. The Department's policy instructions for each subclass confirm it. Clause 820.223 requires a Subclass 820 applicant to satisfy PIC 4007. Subclause 801.223(1) applies the same criterion at the Subclass 801 stage. Clause 100.222 does so for the Subclass 100 visa, and clause 300.223 does so for the Subclass 300 visa. The Subclass 309 visa also lists PIC 4007. Our guides to the Subclass 820 partner visa and the 820 visa requirements set out the other criteria for the onshore visa.

The difference between PIC 4005 and PIC 4007 is the single most important legal point in a partner visa health refusal. The Department's own 2024 review of the migration health requirement explains that under PIC 4005 "a health waiver is not available", while under PIC 4007 "a waiver of the need to meet this requirement (a 'health waiver') is available for the visa delegate to consider". A decision that treats a partner visa applicant as if PIC 4005 applied, or that never turns to the waiver at all, is a decision that should be examined closely.

Who has to meet the health requirement?

The primary applicant must meet PIC 4007, and so must every member of the family unit who is included in the application. The partner visa criteria use what the Department calls "one fails, all fail" rules. Under subclause 820.224(1), for example, the primary applicant cannot be granted a Subclass 820 visa unless each family member who is also an applicant meets the listed public interest criteria, including PIC 4007. The same structure appears in the Subclass 801, 309, 100 and 300 criteria.

Family members who are not applying can also be caught. Subclause 801.224(2), subclause 100.224(2) and subclause 300.226(2) require members of the family unit who are not applicants to satisfy PIC 4007 unless the delegate is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require them to undergo the assessment. The Department's health page states the same thing in plain language: family members might have to meet the health requirement even if they are not migrating to Australia.

The Australian sponsor is not assessed under PIC 4007. A partner visa health refusal is always about the visa applicant or a member of the applicant's family unit, never about the health of the citizen or permanent resident partner. The sponsor's own health can still be relevant to the waiver, which is discussed below.

Who decides a partner visa health refusal: the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth

The medical part of a partner visa health refusal is decided by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, usually called the MOC, not by the visa delegate. After the applicant completes the required immigration medical examinations, the results are assessed. If a condition is identified that may not meet the health requirement, the case is referred to a MOC, who gives an opinion on whether the applicant meets the relevant parts of PIC 4007.

The Department's health page explains that when the MOC gives advice, the MOC "can only consider your medical situation, not your other personal circumstances". The relationship, the sponsor, children in Australia, work history and every other personal matter are irrelevant to the MOC. They become relevant only at the waiver stage.

Is the delegate bound by the Medical Officer's opinion?

Yes. Under regulation 2.25A of the Migration Regulations 1994, the delegate must take the opinion of the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth on the health matters referred to the MOC to be correct for the purpose of deciding whether the applicant meets the criterion. The delegate cannot substitute their own view of the medical evidence, and cannot prefer a treating specialist's report over the MOC opinion on the medical question.

This is where many applicants misunderstand a partner visa health refusal. They send the Department a letter from their own doctor saying the condition is mild, and expect the delegate to accept it. The delegate cannot do that. What can change the medical outcome is a new or reviewed opinion from a MOC, or a finding that the opinion relied on was not a valid opinion of the kind the regulation requires. An opinion that addresses the wrong question, the wrong person or the wrong criterion is open to challenge. So is an opinion that is so old that it no longer describes the person being assessed.

What does the Medical Officer actually assess?

The MOC assesses whether the applicant has a disease or condition that is a threat to public health or a danger to the Australian community, and whether a disease or condition is such that a person with it would be likely to require health care or community services that would result in a significant cost to the Australian community, or prejudice the access of Australian citizens or permanent residents to health care or community services.

The Department's Medical Officer of the Commonwealth Advice Pack, released under freedom of information in 2024, states that MOCs "must therefore take into account the cost of health care or community services for which a hypothetical person with the same condition and level of severity as the applicant would be eligible". In other words, the question is not what this particular applicant says they will use, or whether they have private health insurance. The question is what services a person with that condition, at that level of severity, would be eligible for. That approach is one reason a partner visa health refusal often feels unfair to the couple, and it is also why the waiver matters so much.

What "significant cost" and "prejudice to access" mean in a partner visa health refusal

Significant cost means a projected cost to Australian health care and community services that is higher than the average cost for an Australian. The Department describes significant cost as a cost that is "higher than the average health and community services cost for an Australian". The Department sets a threshold for that purpose and reviews it from time to time. This article does not state the threshold, because the figure changes and the precise number is rarely the decisive issue in a partner visa health refusal.

The MOC estimates the likely cost over a forward period. The Department's page on protecting health care and community services explains that for permanent and provisional visas the MOC generally projects costs over five years, with a shorter period for older applicants and a longer period for some chronic conditions with a predictable course. The estimate covers health care and community services, which can include hospital care, specialist care, medicines, disability supports and special education, depending on the condition.

Prejudice to access is a separate limb. It applies where a condition is likely to prevent Australian citizens or permanent residents from accessing health care or community services that are in short supply. The Department currently identifies organ transplants and dialysis as the services in short supply for this purpose. A partner visa health refusal on the prejudice to access limb is less common than a refusal on the significant cost limb, but the two are often recorded together.

Applicants commonly get one thing wrong here. They assume that if they can pay for their own treatment, there is no significant cost. That is not how the test works at the MOC stage. Private payment, insurance and family support do not change the hypothetical cost assessment. They may be relevant later, when the decision maker considers whether to waive the requirement.

What a partner visa health refusal does not mean

A partner visa health refusal does not mean the applicant is banned from Australia, and it does not mean the relationship has been rejected. It means that, on the material before the decision maker at the time of decision, PIC 4007 was not met and the health requirement was not waived. Each of those three elements can change: the material, the time of decision, and the waiver outcome.

A partner visa health refusal also does not mean the applicant did something wrong. Unlike a refusal under PIC 4020 for false or misleading information, a health refusal carries no suggestion of dishonesty, unless a condition was deliberately concealed. Applicants who disclosed their medical history openly, completed every examination and cooperated with the panel physician can still receive a partner visa health refusal. That is the nature of a test that looks at projected cost rather than conduct.

Nor does a partner visa health refusal mean that the condition is serious in a clinical sense. Some conditions that are well controlled and cause little day to day difficulty still carry a projected cost above the threshold, because of the medicines or services that a person with that condition would be eligible for. Other conditions that sound serious may not exceed the threshold at all. The legal outcome follows the MOC's cost assessment, not the label of the diagnosis. For that reason, couples should not assume that a refusal cannot be challenged simply because the condition has a frightening name, and should not assume that a mild condition makes a grant on review certain.

Finally, a partner visa health refusal is not a decision about the sponsor. The sponsor's approval as a sponsor, and the sponsor's ability to sponsor in future, are separate matters. Where a sponsor has sponsored partners before, the sponsorship limitation rules apply independently of the health outcome.

Is a health waiver available after a partner visa health refusal?

Yes. Because partner visas use PIC 4007, a health waiver is available, and a decision maker who refuses a partner visa on health grounds must consider it where the applicant otherwise qualifies. The waiver allows the decision maker to grant the visa even though the MOC has found that the significant cost or prejudice to access limb is not met.

In general terms, the waiver can be exercised where the applicant meets all the other criteria for the visa and the decision maker is satisfied that granting the visa would be unlikely to result in undue cost to the Australian community, or undue prejudice to the access of Australian citizens or permanent residents to health care or community services. The Department's 2024 review describes the waiver in those terms. The word that matters is "undue". The MOC has already found the cost is significant. The waiver asks whether, taking everything into account, that cost is undue.

What the waiver can and cannot cover

The waiver only covers the cost and access parts of PIC 4007. It does not allow a decision maker to grant a visa to a person found to have active tuberculosis or another condition that is a threat to public health. In those cases the path is treatment and a further medical assessment, not a waiver.

The waiver also depends on the rest of the application being in order. If the relationship has not been accepted, or another criterion is unmet, the waiver question does not arise in the same way. That is why a partner visa health refusal sometimes appears alongside other refusal grounds, and why the decision record must be read in full before any strategy is chosen. Our article on why partner visas get refused explains the other common grounds.

What decision makers look at when considering the waiver

The decision maker looks at the whole of the applicant's circumstances, alongside the MOC's estimate of cost. Under Departmental policy, matters commonly weighed include the nature and extent of the estimated cost, any steps that would reduce the cost to the community, and compassionate or compelling circumstances, including the interests of Australian citizens or permanent residents such as the sponsoring partner and children. A long, settled relationship, Australian citizen children and a sponsor who depends on the applicant are typical examples.

Detailed evidence building for the waiver is a subject of its own. In short, the waiver case must show why refusing this visa to this family would be wrong, and must deal directly with the cost the MOC identified rather than ignoring it. A partner visa health refusal that recorded a thin waiver submission, or none at all, is often a case where the review application can put a much stronger waiver case.

Partner visa health refusal for not completing health examinations

Not every partner visa health refusal involves a serious medical condition. A significant number of refusals happen because the Department was not satisfied that the applicant had completed the required immigration medical examinations, or because the examination results had not reached the Department's system when the decision was made. In that situation the delegate cannot find that PIC 4007 is met, and refuses the visa.

Published Tribunal decisions show how often this happens. Many matters were remitted after the applicant provided evidence of a completed health examination at review, or after Departmental records showed the health requirements had been finalised and the applicant had been cleared. The issue in those matters was not the applicant's health. It was missing or unprocessed paperwork.

This kind of partner visa health refusal is usually far easier to address than a refusal based on a MOC opinion of significant cost. The correct response is to complete any outstanding examinations through the approved panel process, keep the eMedical reference and the completion confirmation, and put that material before the Tribunal on review. It is still essential to lodge the review on time. A missed review deadline turns an administrative problem into a permanent one.

Applicants should also check whether the Department asked for the examinations at all, how the request was sent, and whether the request went to the address or representative recorded on the application. A request that never reached the applicant is a procedural issue that should be raised. Requests for further information are explained in our guide to responding to a section 56 request.

Common errors to check in a partner visa health refusal decision

The decision record in a partner visa health refusal should be read line by line, because the errors that matter are usually in the reasoning, not in the outcome paragraph. The following are the points My Migration Lawyers checks first. None of them depend on disputing the medical science. They depend on whether the law was applied correctly to the facts.

Was the health waiver considered at all?

The first question is whether the decision maker turned to the waiver. Because every partner visa is subject to PIC 4007, a partner visa health refusal that simply records the MOC opinion and refuses the visa, without any assessment of undue cost or undue prejudice, has a clear problem. A one line statement that the waiver "has been considered" is also weak. The decision record should show what the decision maker considered and why the waiver was not exercised.

Was the waiver considered properly?

Even where the decision record discusses the waiver, the reasoning may be flawed. Common problems include treating the MOC's significant cost finding as automatically meaning the cost is undue, ignoring compassionate or compelling circumstances the applicant raised, failing to consider the interests of the Australian sponsor or Australian citizen children, and failing to address evidence about measures that would reduce the cost to the community. A waiver assessment that repeats the MOC figure and stops there has not answered the waiver question.

Was the right family member assessed?

A partner visa health refusal can be based on the health of a family member rather than the primary applicant. The decision should identify exactly who failed PIC 4007 and on what basis. Errors arise where a person was treated as a member of the family unit when they were not, or where a non-migrating family member was required to undergo assessment without the decision maker considering whether it was unreasonable to require it. Published Tribunal decisions include a matter in which the issue was that the applicant's non-migrating sons did not satisfy PIC 4007(1)(c), and another in which the issue concerned the applicant's daughter, the discretion to waive, and the fact the daughter was unlikely ever to come to Australia.

Who counts as a member of the family unit is a technical question. It depends on the definitions in regulation 1.12 and on the age and dependency of each person. It should never be assumed from the way the application was lodged.

Was the Medical Officer's opinion current and valid?

The MOC opinion must relate to the applicant as they are, assessed against the correct criterion. A partner visa health refusal may rely on an opinion given long before the decision, while the applicant's condition has since changed with treatment. It may rely on an opinion that addresses a different visa or a different criterion, or one that does not address both limbs that the decision relies on. Where the opinion is out of date or does not answer the question the law asks, the decision maker may not be entitled to rely on it as conclusive.

Published Tribunal decisions include matters in which the issue was an updated MOC opinion, a further opinion of a MOC provided to the Tribunal, and an applicant passing a further Review Medical Officer's examination. Those records show that the medical position at review is not frozen at the date of the Department's decision.

Was the applicant given a chance to comment?

Before refusing a partner visa on health grounds, the Department should normally give the applicant a chance to respond to the adverse health finding and to put forward waiver material. Whether a formal invitation under section 57 of the Migration Act 1958 was legally required depends on the nature of the information, but a decision made with no opportunity to address the waiver is a decision that deserves careful review. Our article on the section 57 natural justice letter explains how that process works.

Were the other criteria assessed correctly?

A partner visa health refusal is sometimes paired with a finding on another criterion, such as the genuineness of the relationship or a Schedule 3 criterion. Because the waiver depends on the applicant meeting the other criteria, an error on another criterion can carry through into the waiver reasoning. Every refusal ground in the decision should be identified and tested, not only the health ground.

Reading your partner visa health refusal letter

A partner visa health refusal is usually notified with a decision letter and a decision record. Both should be kept. The letter states the decision, the review rights and how to apply for review. The decision record sets out the criteria considered, the evidence relied on and the reasons.

The key items to find in the decision record are these:

• the criterion relied on, which should be PIC 4007 and not PIC 4005;
• the person or persons who were found not to meet the health requirement;
• the date of the MOC opinion and what it says about each limb of the test;
• whether, and how, the health waiver was considered;
• what material the applicant provided before the decision, and whether it was mentioned;
• whether any other criterion was found not to be met; and
• the review rights section, including who can apply and the deadline.

If the decision record does not contain the MOC opinion or the full waiver reasoning, the documents can be requested. A request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 is a separate process with its own time frames, so it must never delay the review application. Our broader guide to what to do after a partner visa refusal explains the general sequence.

One practical point is often missed. The review rights section of the letter is the most important part of a partner visa health refusal letter. It sets out whether the decision can be reviewed, who must lodge the review, and when the time limit runs. Read it first.

Bridging visas and travel after a partner visa health refusal

For an onshore Subclass 820 applicant, a partner visa health refusal does not usually end lawful status straight away. An applicant who holds a Bridging visa A or another bridging visa linked to the partner application generally keeps it while the review period runs and, if a valid review application is lodged, while the review is pending. The bridging visa ends a short time after the Tribunal's decision if the review is unsuccessful. The exact effect depends on the bridging visa held, so it should be checked against the grant notice. Our guide to Bridging visa A and the overview of bridging visas in Australia explain the basics.

Travel is a separate risk. A Bridging visa A does not allow re-entry to Australia after departure. An applicant who wants to travel during review would need a Bridging visa B, and leaving Australia without the right bridging visa can cause the applicant to lose lawful status and the ability to return while the review continues. Applicants who are being treated in Australia for the very condition that led to the partner visa health refusal should be especially careful before making any travel plans.

For an offshore Subclass 309 applicant, a partner visa health refusal does not affect status in Australia, because the applicant is outside Australia. The review application is lodged by the Australian sponsor. Where the applicant is in Australia on another visa, such as a visitor visa, the conditions on that visa still apply. Our guide to the tourist visa to partner visa pathway explains the common traps.

Partner visa health refusal at the permanent stage

A partner visa health refusal at the permanent Subclass 801 or Subclass 100 stage is less common, but it does happen. Departmental policy says applicants who received a permanent health clearance at the temporary or provisional stage, or who had a health waiver exercised, are not ordinarily required to repeat health examinations at the permanent stage. Repeat examinations are generally requested only where the Department has reason to believe a condition was not disclosed, where there are fraud concerns, where the Department has information that the applicant's health has changed, or where the temporary or provisional visa ceased well before the permanent assessment began.

Two further points matter at the permanent stage. First, a dependent child added after the temporary visa was granted, for example a child born later, will usually need to complete medical examinations for the first time at the second stage. Second, under subclause 801.223(2), an applicant who holds a Subclass 820 visa granted on the basis of subclause 820.211(5), which concerns certain former Subclass 300 visa holders, does not need to meet the public interest criteria again, other than PIC 4019 where it applies. The difference between the two stages is explained in our article on Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801.

Does a partner visa health refusal affect future visa applications?

A partner visa health refusal does not, by itself, create a bar period of the kind that follows a refusal under PIC 4020. There is no fixed exclusion period attached to a health refusal. The practical effect is different: the same condition will be assessed again in any later application that is subject to a health criterion, and the earlier MOC opinion and refusal will be on the Department's records.

That means a later application needs to deal with the earlier partner visa health refusal openly. The application forms ask about previous refusals, and the answer must be accurate. Failing to disclose an earlier refusal, or failing to disclose the condition that caused it, risks a much more serious problem under PIC 4020. Our guide to Form 80 explains why personal history answers must be complete and consistent.

For an applicant in Australia, the more immediate concern is section 48 of the Migration Act 1958. A person who has been refused a visa in Australia and does not hold a substantive visa is limited in the visas they can apply for while in Australia. Whether a further partner application can be made onshore depends on the facts, and must be checked before any new application is lodged. Our article on Schedule 3 partner visa waivers explains the extra criteria that apply to people without a substantive visa.

Where the condition belongs to a dependent child or another family member, the family may also need to consider whether that person should be included in a later application at all. That is a significant decision with long term consequences for the family, and it should only be made with full legal advice on the family unit and dependency rules. It is never a decision to make in a hurry after a partner visa health refusal.

Can you appeal a partner visa health refusal to the ART?

Yes. A partner visa health refusal is generally reviewable at the Administrative Review Tribunal, which replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. For an onshore refusal, the applicant applies for review. For an offshore Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 refusal, the Australian sponsor applies. The Tribunal reconsiders the case on the merits and can affirm the decision, set it aside and substitute a new decision, or remit the matter to the Department with directions.

Merits review is the main remedy for a partner visa health refusal. It is not limited to finding legal errors. The Tribunal decides afresh whether the criteria are met, on the evidence before it at the time of its own decision. For an overview of the process, read our guide on what to expect at ART review. Applicants considering whether to engage a lawyer for review can read our article on when you need a visa appeal lawyer.

How long do you have to apply?

The time limit for a partner visa health refusal review is short. It runs from the date the decision is notified, not the date the letter is opened, and it is strictly applied. The decision letter states the exact period. The review application must be lodged immediately, with the required fee or a fee reduction request, and the review applicant must be the correct person. A review lodged by the wrong person, or after the deadline, is not a valid review.

What the Tribunal can revisit in a partner visa health refusal

The Tribunal can revisit almost every part of a partner visa health refusal. It can consider whether the applicant has now completed any outstanding health examinations. It can obtain a new opinion from a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth on the applicant's current condition. It can consider whether the right family members were required to meet PIC 4007. Most importantly, it can decide the health waiver itself, on the evidence before it, without being bound by the delegate's view of the waiver.

What the Tribunal cannot revisit

The Tribunal cannot simply prefer a treating specialist's view over a valid MOC opinion on the medical question. The rule that the MOC opinion is taken to be correct applies to the Tribunal as it does to the delegate. That is why the strategy at review usually has three parts: test whether the existing opinion is valid and current, seek a fresh opinion where the medical position has changed, and build the strongest possible waiver case.

The Tribunal also cannot waive the public health limbs of PIC 4007. A condition that is a threat to public health is addressed through treatment and a further assessment, not through the waiver. Nor can the Tribunal grant a visa where another criterion that has no waiver remains unmet.

New medical evidence and a fresh Medical Officer opinion

New medical evidence can be put before the Tribunal in a partner visa health refusal review. That evidence matters in two ways. First, it can support a request that the Tribunal seek a new or review opinion from a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, where treatment has changed the applicant's condition or where the original opinion was based on incomplete information. Second, it can support the waiver, by showing the real course of the condition and the measures in place to manage it.

Treating doctors' reports must be accurate, current and focused on the questions the law asks. They should identify the diagnosis, the current severity, the treatment plan and the expected course. They should not be advocacy documents. My Migration Lawyers does not give medical advice, and does not tell doctors what to say. The firm identifies the legal questions, explains them to the client, and presents the client's own medical evidence in the form the Tribunal needs.

Presenting the waiver case at review

The waiver case at review should answer the cost the MOC identified, not argue around it. It should explain the relationship, the sponsor's circumstances, any Australian citizen children, the family's ties to Australia, the impact of refusal on the Australian family members, and any realistic measures that reduce the cost to the community. Each claim needs evidence. A partner visa health refusal review with a vague waiver submission and no supporting documents gives the Tribunal very little to work with.

Partner visa health refusal matters the Tribunal has remitted

Published Tribunal decisions reviewed by My Migration Lawyers include many partner visa matters that were remitted to the Department on health issues. The descriptions below state only the issue recorded for each decision. They are not predictions about any other case, and every partner visa health refusal turns on its own facts.

• Vong (Migration) [2024] AATA 765, Subclass 820: health criteria, undue cost to the Australian community, compassionate or compelling circumstances, and a lengthy and genuine de facto relationship. Remitted.
• 2100971 (Migration) [2024] AATA 335, Subclass 820: the applicant did not meet the health requirements, the relationship was of six years, there were significant family connections in Australia, and the cost of treatment was found not to be significant. Remitted.
• 1907240 (Migration) [2024] AATA 2111, Subclass 820: health criteria, where the potential cost of treatment found by the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth represented an extreme case, and the applicant worked full time in a physically demanding occupation. Remitted.
• Li (Migration) [2021] AATA 4857, Subclass 820: health criterion waiver, a medical condition, not likely to prejudice access to health care, and undue cost to the Australian community. Remitted.
• Burke (Migration) [2024] AATA 130, Subclass 309: health requirements, the applicant's daughter's mild intellectual impairment, the discretion to waive the requirement, and the daughter being unlikely ever to come to Australia. Remitted.
• Evangelio (Migration) [2022] AATA 1109, Subclass 820: health criteria not met, the medical opinion validly made, and the applicant's non-migrating sons not satisfying PIC 4007(1)(c). Remitted.
• Hope (Migration) [2022] AATA 1236, Subclass 309: failure to meet PIC 4007, health requirements met, and an updated MOC opinion. Remitted.
• Nguyen (Migration) [2022] AATA 432, Subclass 309: health criteria, a further opinion of a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth provided to the Tribunal, and no evidence of a signed undertaking. Remitted.
• Woolf (Migration) [2022] AATA 188, Subclass 820: health criteria, medical assessment, and an opinion of a review Medical Officer of the Commonwealth provided to the Tribunal. Remitted.
• Mao (Migration) [2023] AATA 343, Subclass 309: health requirement, a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth health examination, employment prospects, and the applicant passing a further Review Medical Officer's examination. Remitted.
• Biskaps (Migration) [2023] AATA 2972, Subclass 820: health requirement, a medical assessment provided on review, and an Australian citizen child of the relationship. Remitted.

Three themes stand out. The waiver is often decisive. The medical position at review can differ from the position at the time of the Department's decision. And many matters involved nothing more than health examinations that were completed or cleared by the time of review.

Options if the ART review of a partner visa health refusal fails

If the Tribunal affirms a partner visa health refusal, the options are limited and each one has its own strict requirements. They should be assessed straight away, because some of them also have short time limits.

Judicial review

Judicial review is available only for legal error, called jurisdictional error. It is not a second merits review. In a partner visa health refusal, possible errors include failing to consider the waiver, misunderstanding the waiver test, relying on an invalid MOC opinion, or denying procedural fairness. Judicial review applications have a short time limit. Our pages on judicial review and visa refusals explain when it may be worth pursuing.

Ministerial intervention

The Minister has a personal power to substitute a more favourable decision after a Tribunal decision in some cases. It is non-compellable. The Minister does not have to consider a request, and the guidelines are narrow. It should never be treated as a routine next step, and it should not be relied on to stay in Australia.

A new partner visa application

A new application may be possible in some cases, but it is not a way around PIC 4007. The applicant will be assessed against the health requirement again, and the MOC will consider the applicant's condition at that time. A new application is realistic only where something real has changed, such as successful treatment, or where the earlier waiver case was never properly presented. For onshore applicants, section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 may restrict which visas can be applied for in Australia after a refusal. Our article on a partner visa after a visa refusal explains when an onshore application may still be possible. Applicants without a substantive visa should also read about Schedule 3 waivers.

Mistakes that make a partner visa health refusal harder to fix

The most damaging mistake is missing the review deadline. The second is lodging a review and then doing nothing until the hearing. A partner visa health refusal review needs work from the start: obtaining the decision record and MOC opinion, identifying the errors, gathering current medical evidence, and building the waiver case.

Other common mistakes include sending the Tribunal a treating doctor's letter that simply disagrees with the MOC, without asking for a fresh opinion; ignoring a family member whose health was the real reason for refusal; failing to disclose a relevant condition in a later application; and travelling on the wrong bridging visa during review. Applicants who previously lodged their own application and now want legal help can read about hiring a lawyer after lodgement, or about getting a second opinion. Those facing a deadline should read our guide to urgent immigration advice.

How My Migration Lawyers handles a partner visa health refusal

My Migration Lawyers acts in partner visa health refusal matters for onshore and offshore applicants and their Australian sponsors. These are complex cases. They sit at the meeting point of medical evidence, a technical regulation and a discretionary waiver, and the firm deals with them regularly as part of its partner visa refusal and review work. The firm is capable of handling them from the day the refusal arrives through to the Tribunal hearing.

The work on a partner visa health refusal follows a set order:

• confirm the review deadline and the correct review applicant, and lodge the review application immediately;
• obtain and read the decision record, the MOC opinion and the Department's file, using a freedom of information request where needed;
• identify every error, including whether the waiver was considered, whether the right family members were assessed, and whether the MOC opinion was current and valid;
• work with the client to obtain current reports from the client's own treating doctors, without giving medical advice, and decide whether to ask the Tribunal to seek a fresh opinion from a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth;
• prepare the waiver submissions and evidence, presenting the client's own circumstances and the interests of the Australian sponsor and family in the form the Tribunal requires; and
• prepare the client and sponsor for the hearing, and advise on bridging visa and travel issues throughout.

Matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. More about the firm is on our about page, and our partner visa lawyers page explains the full range of partner visa work, including Subclass 820 visa applications, Subclass 820 refusals, family violence matters, sponsorship limitations and visa cancellations. The firm acts for clients across Australia, including through its partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta.

Clients choosing representation for a review often compare firms first. Our guides on choosing the best partner visa lawyer in Australia, with local versions for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, on the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta, explain what to look for in a lawyer handling a refusal and review.

If you have received a partner visa health refusal, or a letter warning that the health requirement may not be met, the review deadline is already running. Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers so the decision can be reviewed and the review application lodged in time.

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