Partner Visa Incorrect Answers Found by the Department

What happens when the Department finds a partner visa incorrect answer?

When the Department of Home Affairs finds a partner visa incorrect answer, it will usually ask for more information or send a natural justice letter inviting the applicant to explain the answer before any decision is made. A partner visa incorrect answer is any answer in the application, the sponsorship, Form 80 or an interview that does not match the true facts, such as a wrong date, an undisclosed previous relationship, missing travel, an omitted visa refusal, a child who was not listed, or an address that does not line up with other records. What happens next depends on how the answer came to be given, whether it is relevant to a visa criterion, and how well it is explained.

A partner visa incorrect answer is serious, but it is not automatically fatal. The law draws a clear line between an innocent mistake and information that is false or misleading in a material particular. Public Interest Criterion 4020, known as the integrity PIC, is aimed at the second category. The Department's own policy says a visa cannot be refused under PIC 4020 where the applicant can explain an innocent mistake. The task, once the Department has found the problem, is to show which side of that line the answer falls on.

This guide explains what counts as a partner visa incorrect answer, the duties in the Migration Act 1958 to give correct answers and to correct incorrect ones, how the Department raises the issue, how PIC 4020 works, the consequences of failing it, how to respond with an explanation and evidence, when PIC 4020 can be waived for a partner visa in Australia, and why the response must be prepared before the decision rather than after it.

Why this stage matters more than any other

The stage between the Department raising a partner visa incorrect answer and the Department making its decision is the stage where the outcome is most often decided. Once a refusal is made under PIC 4020, the applicant is dealing with a refusal record, a possible non-grant period and the cost and delay of review. Before the decision, the applicant can still give the explanation and evidence that the decision maker is legally required to consider. Couples who treat the Department's letter as routine paperwork often lose that chance.

This article deals with that pre-decision stage. A refusal on false or misleading information, and review of that refusal, are covered in the firm's material on partner visa refusals and the guide to partner visa refused appeal options. Undisclosed criminal history raises its own character issues and is treated separately.

What counts as a partner visa incorrect answer?

A partner visa incorrect answer is any information given in connection with the application that was wrong when it was given, or that has become wrong because circumstances changed and the Department was not told. It can appear in the online application, the sponsorship application, Form 80, the relationship statement, supporting documents, or answers given at interview.

The most common partner visa incorrect answers

The partner visa incorrect answer issues that the Department raises most often fall into a small number of categories.

Relationship dates are the first. The date the couple met, the date the relationship began, the date they moved in together and the date of marriage or registration are often given differently in different documents. For a de facto partner visa, these dates also go to the 12-month de facto requirement, which makes any inconsistency more significant.

Previous relationships are the second. Applicants and sponsors are asked about previous marriages and de facto relationships. An earlier marriage that was not declared, a divorce date that is wrong, or a previous relationship that appears in an earlier visa application but not in the current one is a classic partner visa incorrect answer.

Travel and residence history is the third. Countries of previous residence, overseas trips and periods spent apart are frequently incomplete. Missing travel can matter because it is checked against movement records.

Visa history is the fourth. A previous visa refusal or cancellation, in Australia or in another country, that is not declared will usually be found, because the Department holds its own records and compares the current application with earlier ones.

Children are the fifth. Applicants must list children, including children who are not migrating. A child from a previous relationship who is left off the form is a partner visa incorrect answer that can affect the family unit, custody criteria and credibility at the same time.

Addresses and employment are the sixth. Residential addresses that do not match bank statements, leases or the sponsor's records, and employment details that overstate or understate the true position, are common. Because addresses are central to the household aspect of the relationship, they are often examined closely. The guide to partner visa relationship evidence explains why consistency across these records matters.

Incorrect, false or misleading: three different labels

The words used to describe a partner visa incorrect answer matter, because each one carries a different legal consequence.

An incorrect answer is the language of the Migration Act. Sections 101, 104 and 105 talk about questions being answered, incorrect answers and correct answers. An answer can be incorrect without anyone intending to deceive.

False or misleading information is the language of PIC 4020. The Department's policy describes false information as information that is contrary to fact or wrong, and misleading information as information that gives the wrong idea or creates a false impression even though it may contain some truth.

A bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1) of the Migration Act. It covers a document that purports to have been issued in respect of the person but was not, a document that is counterfeit or altered without authority, and a document obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

Understanding which label the Department has applied to a partner visa incorrect answer is the first step in working out how to respond.

What does the Migration Act say about a partner visa incorrect answer?

The Migration Act 1958 imposes direct duties on every visa applicant to give complete and correct answers, to report changes in circumstances, and to correct incorrect answers as soon as practicable. These duties are in Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act, which is headed "Visas based on incorrect information may be cancelled".

Section 101: answers must be complete and correct

Section 101 requires a non-citizen to fill in or complete the application form so that all questions on it are answered and no incorrect answers are given or provided. This is a positive duty, and it applies to every question in the online form described in the complete Subclass 820 partner visa guide. Leaving a question blank, or answering it in a way that does not reflect the facts, is a breach of section 101 regardless of the reason.

Forms completed by someone else

Applicants often say a partner visa incorrect answer was entered by a friend, a relative or a previous adviser. The Department's policy notes that, under section 98 of the Act, a non-citizen who does not fill in the form personally is taken to do so if the form is filled in on their behalf. Its PIC 4020 instruction states that it is ultimately the applicant's responsibility to ensure the information is truthful and correct, even where a third party acts for them, and that an applicant cannot simply shift the blame to that third party.

This does not mean the involvement of another person is irrelevant. How the answer came to be given is part of the explanation. It does mean the explanation must deal with why the applicant did not identify the error, not only with who typed it.

Section 104: changes in circumstances must be reported

Section 104 deals with answers that were correct when given but became incorrect later. If circumstances change so that an answer on the application form is incorrect in the new circumstances, the applicant must, as soon as practicable, inform an officer in writing of the new circumstances and the correct answer. For an applicant in Australia at the time of grant, this applies to changes before the visa is granted. The Department's partner visa policy gives examples such as the relationship ending, a birth or death changing the family unit, or a change in marital or relationship status. Changes are usually notified with Form 1022 change of circumstances.

A failure to report a change is a common source of a partner visa incorrect answer. A couple who move house, a sponsor who changes job, or a new child born during processing can all leave the application out of date.

Section 105: incorrect answers must be corrected

Section 105 deals with answers that were wrong from the start. If a non-citizen becomes aware that an answer in the application form, or information given under section 104, was incorrect when it was given, they must, as soon as practicable, notify an officer in writing of the incorrectness and of the correct answer. The Department's form for this is Form 1023, Notification of incorrect answer(s), which asks the applicant to list the incorrect information, the correct details and why the incorrect information was provided.

The duties continue after grant

Subsection 104(4) and subsection 105(2) say these duties apply despite the grant of any visa. Form 1023 itself warns that failure to comply with the requirements to advise the Department of incorrect information can make a visa liable to cancellation. A partner visa incorrect answer is therefore not a problem that disappears once the Subclass 820 visa is granted. It can resurface at the permanent stage, as explained in the guide to Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801, or in a later visa cancellation process. Cancellation is beyond the scope of this guide, which deals with the stage before a decision on the application.

How does the Department raise a partner visa incorrect answer?

The Department usually raises a partner visa incorrect answer in one of three ways: a request for further information under section 56 of the Migration Act, a natural justice letter under section 57, or questions at an interview. Each has a different purpose, and the applicant should identify which one has been received before preparing a response.

A section 56 request for information

Section 56 allows the decision maker to request further information. The Department's PIC 4020 instruction says that where a decision maker suspects fraud but does not yet have information that can be put to the applicant under section 57, the decision maker should request further information under section 56 to confirm or dismiss the suspicion. A section 56 request may ask for documents about a previous relationship, a travel history, an address or an earlier visa application. It may not say why the information is wanted.

A section 56 request about a partner visa incorrect answer should be treated as an early warning. The guide to responding to a section 56 request explains the general rules. In this context, the response is often the first chance to correct the record before the Department forms a view.

A section 57 natural justice letter

Section 57 requires the decision maker to invite comment on information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusing the visa, where that information is specifically about the applicant or another person and was not given by the applicant for the purpose of the application. The Department must give particulars of the information, ensure as far as reasonably practicable that the applicant understands why it is relevant, and invite comment within a stated time.

The Department's policy is that a section 56 request cannot be used in place of a section 57 letter when a PIC 4020 refusal is being considered. Its instruction says that a PIC 4020 refusal would likely be affected by jurisdictional error if the PIC 4020 information was added to a section 56 request rather than put in a section 57 letter. Where the applicant has received a letter under section 57 that refers to PIC 4020, the Department is actively considering refusal on integrity grounds. The guide to the s57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explains the general process.

What a PIC 4020 natural justice letter should contain

Under the Department's instruction, a natural justice letter about a partner visa incorrect answer should identify each piece of information considered false or misleading, how it was provided, how it is said to be false or misleading, and which visa criterion it is relevant to. If a document is said to be bogus, the letter should identify the document, quote the definition and say which part applies. The letter should also invite the applicant to give reasons why PIC 4020 should be waived.

Reading the letter against this list is useful. If the letter does not say which criterion the information is material to, or does not invite comment on waiver, that should be noted. The response should still deal with every issue in full.

Questions at interview

A partner visa incorrect answer can also surface at interview. The case officer may ask about how the couple met, previous relationships, children or addresses, and compare the answers with the forms. Where an answer at interview contradicts the application, the Department may follow up with a section 57 letter. The guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explains why interview answers and documents must tell the same story.

Is a partner visa incorrect answer the same as false or misleading information under PIC 4020?

No. A partner visa incorrect answer only becomes a failure of PIC 4020 if the information was false or misleading at the time it was given, was relevant to a visa criterion, and had the quality of purposeful falsity. An honest error that the applicant can credibly explain does not fail PIC 4020, even though it was still an incorrect answer under section 101.

What PIC 4020(1) requires

PIC 4020 is in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994. Clause 820.226 requires a primary applicant for a Subclass 820 visa to satisfy PIC 4020, and paragraph 820.224(1)(c) requires each member of the family unit who is also an applicant to satisfy it. It is also a criterion for the Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa and, for members of the family unit, for the Subclass 309 visa.

The Department's instruction identifies four elements, all of which must exist before an applicant fails PIC 4020(1). There must be evidence before the decision maker. The applicant must have given, or caused to be given, the information or document to the Minister, an officer, the Administrative Review Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth. The information must be a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular. And it must have been given in relation to the current application or a visa the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made.

The policy is clear that PIC 4020(1) is satisfied unless there is evidence to the contrary. A suspicion that is not supported by evidence cannot be the basis for finding that PIC 4020 is not met.

What "in a material particular" means

PIC 4020(5) provides that information is false or misleading in a material particular if it is false or misleading at the time it is given and is relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.

The Department's instruction refers to Khan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 75, where the Federal Court described material information as information that might influence the conclusion the decision maker might reach. The test is whether the information might have made a difference, not whether it would have. Most partner visa incorrect answer issues about relationships, previous partners, children or immigration history are relevant to some criterion, so the materiality element is often met. The real contest is usually purposeful falsity.

The instruction also tells decision makers to identify the specific criterion the information is relevant to, and says the relevant criterion cannot be PIC 4020 itself. A partner visa incorrect answer about a previous marriage, for example, may be relevant to the requirement that the applicant is the spouse of the sponsor, to the validity of the current marriage, and to sponsorship limitations.

Purposeful falsity and the innocent mistake

The Full Federal Court decided in Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 that, to refuse under PIC 4020, the information or document must have the quality of purposeful falsity, whether or not the applicant personally knew of it. The Department's instruction adopts this and states that a visa application cannot be refused under PIC 4020 where the applicant can explain an innocent mistake in information provided by them or on their behalf. It describes purposeful falsity in plain English as being intentionally untrue or incorrect.

The same instruction places the onus on the applicant. It says the applicant must explain, in response to the invitation to comment, why they did what they did and show that their actions were a genuine mistake. If the decision maker believes the explanation, it is open to find no purposeful falsity and that PIC 4020 is satisfied. This is why the explanation for a partner visa incorrect answer must be specific, credible and supported.

Examples the Department treats as innocent mistakes

The Department's policy gives examples where purposeful falsity is unlikely. One is an applicant who answers "no" to a character question but discloses the history elsewhere in the form and provides the police certificate with the application. Another is an applicant who follows a custom of their country of origin without intent to deceive, such as a naming practice on a birth certificate. A third is a typographical error that is not repeated, such as a wrong house number or transposed digits in a year.

These examples show the pattern decision makers look for. A partner visa incorrect answer that is contradicted by the applicant's own documents in the same application, that is isolated rather than repeated, and that has a plausible cause is much easier to explain than an answer that is consistent across several documents but contrary to the truth.

Omission can be enough

A partner visa incorrect answer does not have to be a positive statement. The Department's policy lists omission of facts as an example of false or misleading information, including a partner visa applicant not notifying the Department that their sponsor died shortly after the application was lodged. Leaving out a previous marriage, a child or a refused visa can be treated in the same way. The question is still whether the omission was purposeful.

Information that was correct when given

PIC 4020 applies only to information that was false or misleading at the time it was given. The Department's instruction gives an example of an applicant whose answer was correct on the day of lodgement, where the relevant event happened later. In that case the answer was not false when given. A partner visa incorrect answer that arises only because circumstances later changed is a section 104 notification issue, not a PIC 4020(1) issue, although a failure to notify can create its own problem.

What are the consequences if PIC 4020 is not met?

If PIC 4020 is not met and is not waived, the partner visa must be refused, a three-year non-grant period applies to later applications, and other members of the family unit can be affected. The consequences go well beyond the current application, which is why a partner visa incorrect answer must be dealt with before the decision.

Refusal of the application

PIC 4020 is a criterion for grant. If the decision maker is not satisfied that it is met and does not exercise the waiver, the visa cannot be granted. For a combined Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application, a refusal at the temporary stage ends the pathway unless it is overturned on review. The why partner visas get refused guide and the guide to Subclass 820 visa refusals explain how refusals on different grounds interact, and the guide to a partner visa after a visa refusal explains the later options.

The three-year non-grant period

Under PIC 4020(2), the decision maker must be satisfied that neither the applicant nor any member of their family unit has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) in the period starting three years before the current application was made and ending when the current application is decided. In practice, a PIC 4020(1) refusal creates a three-year non-grant period for most later visas to which PIC 4020 applies. The Department's instruction states that the non-grant period remains in effect while a review is before the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Identity findings carry a ten-year period

Where the applicant is refused because the decision maker is not satisfied of the applicant's identity under PIC 4020(2A), PIC 4020(2B) imposes a ten-year non-grant period. There is no waiver for the identity requirements. A partner visa incorrect answer about a name or date of birth can therefore become far more serious if it leads to doubt about who the applicant is.

Effect on the family unit

PIC 4020(2) looks at refusals of the applicant and of any member of the applicant's family unit. Under subclause 820.224(1), the primary applicant cannot be granted a Subclass 820 visa unless each member of the family unit who is also an applicant satisfies PIC 4020. A partner visa incorrect answer by one family member can therefore affect everyone in the application.

Withdrawing does not remove the problem

Some applicants consider withdrawing the application once a partner visa incorrect answer is raised. The Department's instruction says that where an applicant withdraws in response to a PIC 4020 natural justice letter, the Department records the suspected fraud in its systems so that future applications are scrutinised. Withdrawal avoids a refusal decision, but it does not erase the record and it gives up the chance to explain. It also has consequences for the applicant's current visa status, which should be checked against the guide to bridging visas in Australia before any step is taken.

A bogus document cannot be undone

The Department's policy draws an important distinction. There is a clear opportunity to correct incorrect information, but there is no provision to undo the giving of a bogus document. Providing a genuine marriage certificate after a bogus one does not change the fact that a bogus document was given. A partner visa incorrect answer can be corrected and explained. A false document is a much harder problem.

How to respond to a partner visa incorrect answer

The right way to respond to a partner visa incorrect answer is to identify exactly what the Department says is wrong and which criterion it relates to, rebuild the correct facts from reliable records, explain honestly and specifically how the incorrect answer came to be given, prove the explanation with documents, deal with the underlying criterion, and make waiver submissions in the alternative, all within the time allowed.

Step 1: Identify the issue and the criterion

Read the letter line by line. List every piece of information the Department says is incorrect, how it was provided, and the criterion it says the information is relevant to. A partner visa incorrect answer about a previous relationship may be said to be relevant to the spouse definition in section 5F, to the validity of the marriage, or to sponsorship limitations. Each must be answered. If the letter raises several issues, the Department's own policy says the applicant is being asked to comment on each and every one.

Step 2: Establish the correct facts from reliable records

Before explaining a partner visa incorrect answer, the applicant must know the correct answer. The 820 partner visa evidence checklist shows the records that are usually available. That means checking dates against marriage and divorce documents, travel against passport stamps and itineraries, addresses against leases and bank statements, and previous applications against the Department's records. My Migration Lawyers obtains the applicant's immigration history from the Department itself, so the comparison is made against the Department's own file rather than the applicant's memory.

Step 3: Explain how the answer came to be given

The explanation is the centre of the response. It should say who completed the relevant part of the form, what the applicant understood the question to mean, what information they had at the time, and why the answer was wrong. Common genuine explanations include a misunderstanding of a question, reliance on a document with an error in it, a translation problem, confusion between a religious and a civil marriage or divorce date, a cultural practice, or an error by the person who completed the form that the applicant did not notice.

The explanation must be the applicant's own account and must be true. A generic statement that "it was a mistake" carries little weight. The Department is looking for a specific, coherent account that fits the rest of the evidence.

Step 4: Prove the explanation

Evidence turns an explanation into a credible one. Evidence that the correct information was disclosed elsewhere in the application is particularly powerful, because the Department's policy treats that pattern as pointing away from purposeful falsity. So is evidence that the applicant had no reason to hide the true answer, for example because the correct answer would not have harmed the application. Documents showing the source of an error, such as a mistranslated certificate, a draft prepared by someone else, or correspondence showing the applicant's understanding at the time, can also help.

Step 5: Deal with the underlying criterion

A partner visa incorrect answer is rarely only an integrity issue. If the incorrect answer concerned a previous relationship, the response should also show that the previous relationship has ended and that the current relationship meets the requirements. If it concerned relationship dates, the response should show the true timeline and how it meets the requirements. The guides to the partner visa relationship statement and the partner visa document checklist explain the evidence usually needed. Correcting the record without addressing the criterion can leave the application exposed on a different ground.

Step 6: Make waiver submissions in the alternative

Even where the explanation is strong, the response should set out, in the alternative, why PIC 4020 should be waived if the decision maker is not satisfied. The Department's instruction says applicants must be given the chance to put waiver grounds, and that an applicant cannot be expected to know they need to give waiver information unless invited. The waiver is explained in the next section.

Step 7: Respond within time, in writing, completely

The Department's policy says a response received before a decision is made must be considered, even if it arrives after the stated period. That is not a reason to be late. A decision can be made as soon as the time ends, and a late response risks arriving after the decision. If more time is genuinely needed to obtain a document from a third party, the request should be made before the deadline with a clear reason, because repeated extension requests without an acceptable reason are listed in the policy as a trigger for further investigation.

What not to do

Do not give a new version of events that conflicts with earlier versions without explaining why. Do not provide further documents that have not been checked, because a partner visa incorrect answer can become a bogus document finding if a doubtful document is added. Do not blame a third party without addressing the applicant's own responsibility. And do not ignore the letter. If no response is received, the Department's policy is that the decision maker decides on the information before it and records the suspected fraud.

Can PIC 4020 be waived for a partner visa?

Yes. Under PIC 4020(4), the decision maker may waive PIC 4020(1) and PIC 4020(2) if satisfied that compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, justify the grant of the visa. The waiver does not apply to the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B).

Why the waiver is particularly relevant to partner visas

Every partner visa has an Australian sponsor, who is usually an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. That means there is always at least one person whose interests can engage the second limb of the waiver. The Department's instruction expressly recognises this, stating that in the partner visa context the nature and extent of the bonds between partners in a genuine relationship, and the consequences of the partners separating, are likely to differ from one relationship to another.

The waiver is still discretionary. A partner visa incorrect answer that is found to be purposefully false will not be waived simply because a sponsor exists. The circumstances must be compelling or compassionate and must justify the grant.

Factors the Department considers

The Department's instruction lists factors including an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen child under 18 who would be adversely affected, the existence of family networks in Australia, significant health or welfare issues affecting an Australian citizen or permanent resident and the absence of other carers, and whether a refusal would result in continuing separation of immediate family members because the Australian partner cannot live in the applicant's country or a third country. It also refers to whether the applicant's country of residence is a war zone and whether the sponsor is a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations.

The instruction states that the interests of the applicant alone are not relevant to the second limb. The circumstances must affect the Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. It also says the circumstances must already exist, rather than being something that may happen in the future.

The decision maker must consider waiver, but the applicant should argue it

The Department's instruction requires decision makers to actively consider waiver whether or not the applicant asks for it, and to consider all information provided with or in relation to the application. In practice, however, a decision maker can only weigh what is in front of them. A response to a partner visa incorrect answer should therefore put the waiver case fully, with evidence: statements from the sponsor, evidence about children, medical evidence about a family member where relevant, and evidence of why the couple could not live together elsewhere. The Form 888 statements of people who know the family can support the picture of the relationship and its importance.

At the waiver stage, the decision maker can also weigh the nature of the conduct, the applicant's immigration history and the importance of the integrity of the visa system. A candid explanation, and a correction of the record, are relevant to that balance.

What a waiver does and does not do

A waiver means the applicant satisfies PIC 4020 for that application. It does not make the incorrect information correct. The Department's policy states that the applicant must still satisfy every other criterion with genuine evidence. A waiver also applies only to the application being decided. It does not carry over to a later application.

Should you correct a partner visa incorrect answer before the Department finds it?

Yes. Section 105 of the Migration Act requires an applicant who becomes aware that an answer was incorrect when given to notify an officer in writing, as soon as practicable, of the incorrectness and the correct answer. Correcting a partner visa incorrect answer voluntarily is a legal obligation, not merely good strategy.

Voluntary correction is not an immunity

PIC 4020(3) provides that PIC 4020(1) and (2) apply whether or not the decision maker became aware of the bogus document or false or misleading information because of information given by the applicant. Self-correction therefore does not automatically prevent a PIC 4020 assessment. If an answer was purposefully false, correcting it later does not change what happened.

Why correction still matters

For a genuine mistake, an early correction is strong evidence of honesty. It is hard for a decision maker to find that an applicant intended to deceive when the applicant identified and corrected the error before the Department raised it. It also stops the incorrect answer from being repeated in later documents, at interview or at the permanent stage, which is how an isolated error becomes a pattern.

The usual way to correct an incorrect answer is Form 1023, with an explanation and supporting documents. A change of circumstances goes on Form 1022. Where a migration representative is appointed under Form 956, the correction is usually made through that representative. Where the applicant set up the application personally through ImmiAccount, documents can also be attached there.

Before correcting a partner visa incorrect answer, it is sensible to check whether there are other errors in the same application. Correcting one answer while leaving a related one wrong can create a new inconsistency.

How the sponsor's answers affect a partner visa incorrect answer

The sponsor's answers can create a partner visa incorrect answer issue too, because the sponsorship and the visa application are assessed together and the Department compares them. Previous relationships, earlier sponsorships, children and addresses given by the sponsor must match the applicant's version.

The Department's PIC 4020 instruction explains that information provided by a sponsor in support of the sponsorship is usually provided on the sponsor's own behalf. Whether it counts against the applicant under PIC 4020(1) depends on whether the applicant gave it or caused it to be given, and on the nature and extent of the applicant's involvement. Information that relates only to the sponsor, and that the applicant would not usually have, will often not be attributed to the applicant. However, where a third party acts for the applicant without limits, information provided by that third party is generally treated as having been caused to be given by the applicant.

A sponsor's incorrect answer about previous sponsorships may also raise issues under the sponsorship limitations, which are explained in more detail in the guide on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa. Any response should therefore cover both partners' answers.

What Tribunal decisions show about a partner visa incorrect answer

Tribunal decisions show that a partner visa incorrect answer is examined closely, that explanations and waiver grounds are weighed carefully, and that the record before the decision maker matters. The decisions below are remittals: in each, the Tribunal sent the matter back to the Department to reconsider. The descriptions are limited to the issues recorded for each decision. They do not mean any later outcome was a grant.

Previous relationships and marital status

In PALASIT (MIGRATION) [2026] ARTA 1914, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues recorded were false or misleading information, a previous relationship not declared, an element of fraud or deception, and the discretion to waive the criterion. In Pham (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1917, a Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal, the issues were false or misleading information and a previous application as a secondary applicant with a first husband that was not declared. In 1900688 (Migration) [2021] AATA 1812, the issues were false or misleading information about previous relationships, a divorce from a previous spouse not obtained, and the validity of the parties' marriage. In Larney (Migration) [2020] AATA 224, a Federal Court remittal, the issues included false or misleading information about previous relationships.

Marital status in earlier applications also recurs. In TRUONG (Migration) [2024] AATA 680, the issues recorded were false or misleading information in a material particular in a previous visitor visa application about marital status, where the parties were separated but still living together. In Pham (Migration) [2021] AATA 4350, the issues were false or misleading information in a previous visitor visa application where the applicant answered "married" but was separated at the time and later divorced, together with credible witness evidence. In Zhao (Migration) [2024] ARTA 841, the issues included misleading information in a previous application about the end date of a previous marriage.

How the couple met, addresses and residence

In Yeung (Migration) [2020] AATA 4137, the recorded issues included incorrect information in the visa application and at Department interviews, and a meeting through an introduction agency that was not disclosed. In Vung (Migration) [2021] AATA 3556, the issues were false or misleading information, the genuine relationship, and conflicting and changing information about how the parties met and how the relationship developed. In Le (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2423, the issues included incorrect residential information in the visa application alongside the genuine relationship. In Burns (Migration) [2022] AATA 1657, a Subclass 309 matter, the issues were incorrect information about countries of previous residence, compelling or compassionate circumstances, and children born of the relationship.

Innocent error and the opportunity to comment

In Rai (Migration) [2018] AATA 4906, the issues recorded were an unintended translation error in a birth certificate and a new translated certificate consistent on the main issues. In Rojas Nanac (Migration) [2022] AATA 4612, the issues included misleading information in a previous application and insufficient information being provided to the applicant to enable comment. These decisions show why the source of an error, and the adequacy of the Department's letter, are worth examining.

Waiver for families

In HASSAN (Migration) [2019] AATA 6523, a Subclass 300 matter, the issues recorded were that the applicant had given false or misleading information, that the requirements of PIC 4020 were waived, and that a dependent child had been born of the relationship. In NGUYEN (Migration) [2020] AATA 1932, the issues included false and misleading statements and compassionate or compelling circumstances including the birth of the couple's second child. In Xiao (Migration) [2024] AATA 575, the issues included a waiver of the requirement and Australian citizen children. These decisions show why waiver evidence about the sponsor and children should be placed before the decision maker at the first opportunity. The guide to what to expect at an ART review explains the review process if a refusal is made.

Why act before the decision on a partner visa incorrect answer?

Acting before the decision on a partner visa incorrect answer gives the applicant the best chance of a finding of no purposeful falsity or a waiver, avoids a refusal record and a three-year non-grant period, and keeps the application on track rather than starting a review that can take a long time.

The decision maker must consider what is put before them

The Department's policy requires the decision maker to consider the response, assess purposeful falsity, and consider waiver. A thorough response shapes that assessment. A thin response leaves the decision maker with the adverse information and little else.

Review is not a substitute for a proper response

Review by the Administrative Review Tribunal is available for most onshore partner visa refusals, and the Administrative Review Tribunal replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. Review deadlines are short and strictly applied. But review comes after a refusal, while the non-grant period is running and while the applicant's status may be uncertain. It is far better to win the argument at the Department. The guides to the visa appeal lawyer role and to visa refusals explain what follows a refusal.

Status and work rights depend on the application continuing

Most onshore applicants hold a bridging visa while the Subclass 820 visa is processed. The guides to work rights while waiting for a Subclass 820 visa and Bridging Visa A explain that position. Processing can already take a long time, as the guide to Subclass 820 processing times explains. A refusal changes the applicant's position. Applicants who were unlawful or without a substantive visa when they applied also need to keep the Schedule 3 criteria in view, as explained on the firm's Schedule 3 waivers page. Any partner visa incorrect answer about immigration history should be considered alongside these issues.

Getting advice early

The time to get advice on a partner visa incorrect answer is when the section 56 request or section 57 letter arrives, or earlier if the applicant has realised the error. The guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains how to act quickly, and the guide to hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application explains how a lawyer can take over a matter already in progress.

How My Migration Lawyers helps with a partner visa incorrect answer

My Migration Lawyers helps applicants and sponsors respond to a partner visa incorrect answer by reviewing the whole file against the Department's records, identifying exactly what the Department says is wrong and why, and preparing a complete written response that explains the answer, proves the explanation and puts any waiver grounds before a decision is made. The firm deals with complex cases and acts in many partner visa matters involving incorrect answers, undisclosed previous relationships, inconsistent dates and addresses, and section 57 letters raising PIC 4020, and it is well placed to handle them carefully and thoroughly.

What the firm does on an incorrect answer matter

First, the firm reads the section 56 request or section 57 letter and identifies each issue, the way it is said to be incorrect, and the criterion it is linked to. Second, it obtains the applicant's immigration history and previous applications from the Department, so the comparison is made against the Department's own file. Third, it rebuilds the correct facts with the couple from reliable records and maps every place the partner visa incorrect answer appears, including the application, the sponsorship, Form 80, the relationship statement and any interview. Fourth, it takes the applicant's and sponsor's own account of how the answer came to be given, and the couple review, correct and confirm their statements. Fifth, it gathers the evidence that supports the explanation and the underlying criterion. Sixth, it prepares legal submissions on purposeful falsity, materiality and waiver under PIC 4020(4), with evidence about the sponsor, children and family circumstances. Finally, it lodges the response within time and, where needed, the correcting notifications under sections 104 and 105.

Where a partner visa incorrect answer touches other issues, the firm deals with them in the same response, including the genuine relationship, family violence provisions where relevant, sponsorship limitations and Schedule 3. The firm acts on onshore Subclass 820 visa applications, offshore applications and prospective marriage visas, including for same-sex couples through its LGBTI partner visa work.

When applicants come to the firm

Some applicants contact My Migration Lawyers when they first notice an error and want to correct it properly. Others come when a section 56 request or a section 57 letter has arrived. Some lodged the application themselves, or with another adviser, and want a second opinion from an immigration lawyer or need to change immigration lawyer before responding. The guides to an immigration lawyer for a partner visa, the partner visa lawyer role and partner visa lawyer vs doing it yourself explain the value of advice at this point, and the comparison of a migration agent and an immigration lawyer sets out the factual differences.

Who leads the work

Partner visa work at My Migration Lawyers is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. My Migration Lawyers is an Australian immigration law firm. More about the firm is on the About My Migration Lawyers page and the partner visa lawyers page. My Migration Lawyers acts for couples across Australia by video consultation, including partner visa clients in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. The guide to booking an immigration lawyer consultation explains what happens at the first meeting.

Book a consultation about your partner visa incorrect answer

If the Department has raised a partner visa incorrect answer, or you have found an error in your own application, the time to act is now, before a decision is made. Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have the issue reviewed and your response prepared. You can also call 1300 040 300.