Partner Visa With Intervention Orders

A partner visa intervention order issue arises whenever a family or domestic violence protection order touches the applicant, the Australian sponsor or the relationship itself. The order may name the applicant as the respondent. It may name the sponsor as the respondent. Or it may protect the applicant. Each of those situations engages different parts of the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994, and each one has a different answer.

This guide explains every partner visa intervention order scenario in plain terms. It covers what must be disclosed, when it must be disclosed, how the Department of Home Affairs treats an order that never led to a criminal conviction, how a sponsor's record is assessed under regulations 1.20KC and 1.20KD, and how an order protecting the applicant can support a claim under the family violence provisions in Division 1.5 of the Regulations. The common thread is disclosure. A partner visa intervention order that is disclosed correctly and explained properly is a problem to be managed. A partner visa intervention order that is hidden can become a refusal for false or misleading information, even where the order itself would not have stopped the visa.

The article applies to the onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 partner visa, the offshore Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 partner visa and, where relevant, the Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa. For the full framework of the partner visa programme, including the two stages and the sponsor's role, see the firm's complete guide to partner visas in Australia.

Anyone in immediate danger should call 000.

What is an intervention order, and what is it called in each state?

An intervention order is a civil court order made under state or territory law to protect a person from family or domestic violence, and it has a different name in each Australian jurisdiction. The order places conditions on the person it is made against, called the respondent or defendant. Common conditions prohibit violence, threats, harassment, contact or coming within a certain distance of the protected person.

The Department's own policy on Division 1.5 recognises that protection orders go by several names. It lists Apprehended Domestic Violence Order, Domestic Violence Order, Family Violence Intervention Order, Family Violence Order, Family Violence Restraining Order and Intervention Order. In practice:

• In Victoria, the order is usually a family violence intervention order.
• In South Australia, the order is usually an intervention order.
• In New South Wales, the order is an apprehended domestic violence order, often called an AVO or ADVO.
• In Queensland, the order is a domestic violence order.
• In Western Australia, the order is a family violence restraining order.
• In Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, the orders are generally called family violence orders or domestic violence orders.

The name does not change the migration analysis. When this article refers to a partner visa intervention order, it means any of these orders, and any similar order made overseas. The Department's character questions are written broadly so that they catch every kind of personal protection order, whatever the local name.

An order is not a conviction

An intervention order is not a criminal conviction. It is made in civil proceedings, usually on the balance of probabilities, and it does not by itself create a criminal record. That distinction matters for the sponsor limitation in regulation 1.20KC, which turns on convictions. It matters much less for the applicant's character assessment, which can take account of conduct that never reached a criminal court.

A criminal matter can still sit alongside the order. Police may charge a person with an assault or a property offence arising from the same incident. Breaching an order is itself a criminal offence in every state and territory. So a single partner visa intervention order file can contain a civil order, a criminal charge, a conviction or a finding of guilt without conviction. Each must be identified and answered separately.

Interim orders, final orders and consent orders

An interim order is a temporary order made early in the proceedings, often before the respondent has had a chance to respond. A final order is made at the end of the proceedings, either after a hearing or by consent. Many final orders are made by consent without any admission by the respondent that the allegations are true.

All three kinds of order raise a partner visa intervention order question. The difference is in how they are explained. A consent order made without admissions is not a finding that violence occurred, and the explanation should say so accurately. An interim order that was later withdrawn or dismissed should be disclosed together with the record showing how it ended. A final order made after a contested hearing carries more weight, and the explanation must deal with what the court found.

Does a partner visa intervention order have to be disclosed?

Yes. If the applicant, or any person included in the application, has ever been the respondent to a domestic or family violence order, or any other order for the personal protection of another person, that order must be disclosed in the character questions. The obligation applies whether the order is interim or final, current or expired, made in Australia or overseas, and whether or not it was made by consent.

The character section of Form 80 (Part K, question 36) asks whether the person has ever "been the subject of a domestic or family violence order, or any other order, of a tribunal or court or other similar authority, for the personal protection of another person". The same question appears in the character declarations within the online partner visa application in ImmiAccount. The firm's guide to completing Form 80 without errors explains the rest of that form, and its guide on how to create an ImmiAccount covers the online system.

The Form 80 instructions add two points that matter for any partner visa intervention order disclosure:

• The applicant should provide a copy of all declared orders, including domestic or family violence orders.
• The applicant is only asked to declare an order where the applicant is the respondent or subject of the order. The applicant is not asked to declare an order where the applicant is the person requiring protection.

The same question block also asks whether the person has ever been charged with or convicted of family or domestic violence offences or similar offences, whether any charge is awaiting legal action, and whether the person has been convicted of any offence (including a conviction now removed from official records). A partner visa intervention order case often triggers more than one of these questions. Each answer must be correct on its own terms. The firm's Subclass 820 partner visa guide sets out the other criteria every onshore applicant must meet.

Disclosure is about the past, not just the present

The question says "ever". An order made many years ago, in another relationship, with another partner, still has to be declared. An order that expired, was revoked or was replaced still has to be declared. The fact that the respondent believes the order was unfair, was obtained during a bitter separation, or was agreed to only to end the proceedings does not change the answer. Those matters belong in the explanation, not in the answer to the question.

Disclosure continues after lodgement

The duty to give correct information does not end when the application is lodged. Section 101 of the Migration Act requires that a visa application be filled in so that the answers are correct and that no incorrect information is given. Section 104 requires an applicant to notify the Department if circumstances change so that an answer has become incorrect. A partner visa intervention order made, varied or breached after lodgement is a change that should be notified, usually by Form 1022 notification of changes in circumstances, with a covering explanation.

What happens if a partner visa intervention order is not disclosed?

Failing to disclose a partner visa intervention order can lead to refusal under public interest criterion 4020, the integrity criterion, even if the order alone would not have caused the visa to be refused. PIC 4020 applies to partner visa applicants. It allows refusal where an applicant gives, or causes to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular.

The Department's own policy on PIC 4020 explains why the risk is serious. It uses the example of an applicant who answers "no" to the question about convictions when Department records show a conviction. The policy states that the issue is not whether the applicant would have passed the character test. The issue is that the decision maker was prevented from making an informed decision. A partner visa intervention order that is later found through police records, court records or information from a former partner raises exactly that problem.

The Department can find out about an order in many ways. Australian and overseas police checks may show related charges or breaches. State police may share information. A former partner, a family member or the protected person may contact the Department. The sponsor may mention the order in an interview. Once the Department holds information that contradicts the application, the applicant will usually receive a section 57 natural justice letter inviting comment. At that point the applicant is explaining both the order and the failure to disclose it.

A non-disclosure finding can also follow an applicant into later applications. That is why the safest course in every partner visa intervention order matter is full, accurate disclosure at the start, supported by documents and a measured explanation. The firm's article on why Subclass 820 partner visas are refused shows how often refusals turn on the record rather than the relationship, and its guide to a partner visa after a visa refusal explains what can follow.

If the order was not disclosed in an earlier application

Some applicants discover after lodgement that they answered a character question incorrectly, often because they believed an expired or consent order did not count. The answer is usually to correct the record promptly and voluntarily, before the Department raises it. A voluntary correction, with an honest account of why the error happened, is far easier to explain than a non-disclosure that the Department finds for itself. Legal advice should be obtained before the correction is made, because the wording of the explanation matters. The firm's article on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own visa application explains how a representative can step in partway through, and its guide to Form 956 and Form 956A explains how a representative is appointed.

The three ways a partner visa intervention order can affect an application

A partner visa intervention order can affect a partner visa in three distinct ways, and the first step in any matter is to identify which one applies. The legal tests, the evidence and the risks are different in each.

• The applicant is the respondent. The order is a character issue for the applicant. It must be disclosed, and the Department will consider it under PIC 4001 and the character test in section 501. The Ministerial Direction that guides section 501 decisions treats family violence as a primary consideration, even without a conviction.
• The Australian sponsor is the respondent. The order is relevant to the sponsor, not to the applicant's own character. For Subclass 300, 309 and 820 applications, regulation 1.20KC allows the Department to request the sponsor's police checks and requires refusal of the sponsorship in some cases where the sponsor has been convicted of a relevant offence and has a significant criminal record. An order alone is not a conviction, but a breach conviction may be.
• The order protects the applicant. If the relationship has ended, the order may be evidence that the applicant experienced family violence for the purposes of Division 1.5. An order made by a state or territory court after the respondent had an opportunity to be heard is judicially determined evidence. If the couple are still together, the order raises questions about the genuine relationship assessment that must be addressed honestly.

Some matters involve more than one direction at once. Cross orders, where each partner obtained an order against the other, are a common example. So is a matter where the sponsor holds an order protecting them from the applicant, and the applicant later claims family violence by the sponsor. Each part of a partner visa intervention order file must be analysed separately and then presented as one consistent account.

The firm's main partner visa lawyers page sets out the full range of partner matters the firm handles. The firm's article on partner visa lawyers and its comparison of a partner visa lawyer and doing it yourself explain when legal help is worth considering. Its Subclass 820 visa guide and the firm's home page on immigration lawyers in Australia give the wider context. The sections below take each direction in turn.

When the applicant is the respondent: is a partner visa intervention order a character issue?

Yes. Where the applicant is the respondent, a partner visa intervention order is assessed as a character matter under public interest criterion 4001 and the character test in section 501 of the Migration Act, and a conviction is not required for the conduct behind the order to be considered. Partner visa applicants must satisfy PIC 4001. That criterion is met if the applicant passes the character test, or if the Minister decides not to refuse the visa despite a character concern.

Section 501(6) sets out when a person does not pass the character test. One limb, in paragraph 501(6)(c), applies where, having regard to the person's past and present criminal conduct, or the person's past and present general conduct, the person is not of good character. The general conduct limb does not depend on a conviction. Conduct that led to a protection order can be relevant to it, even where no criminal charge was laid.

That does not mean every partner visa intervention order leads to a character refusal. The general conduct limb looks at the person's conduct as a whole, over time. A single interim order made during a separation many years ago, which was later withdrawn, is very different from repeated final orders, breaches and convictions. What the Department needs is enough reliable information to make that assessment. What the applicant needs is to provide that information first, in a form that is accurate and complete.

How the Department processes a character concern

Under Department policy, an application from a person who may not pass the character test is referred to a specialist character area for assessment. If that area considers the person does not pass the test, the decision on whether to refuse is made by a delegate exercising the section 501 power, not by the ordinary partner visa case officer. The applicant is usually invited to comment, with a notice setting out the information relied on.

A partner visa intervention order matter that reaches this stage is serious. The response is a formal submission, supported by evidence, addressing the character test and every consideration in the Ministerial Direction. Where time is short, the firm's guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to prepare. The firm's visa cancellations page deals with character cancellation and refusal work under section 501 more broadly.

Interim orders, consent orders without admissions, and orders that were withdrawn

The kind of order is central to how a partner visa intervention order should be explained. Accuracy is the rule. The explanation should never overstate how favourable the outcome was, and it should never understate it.

• An interim order that lapsed, was withdrawn or was dismissed. The explanation should show what happened and when, with the court record. If the application was withdrawn by the protected person, or dismissed after a hearing, that is relevant and should be documented.
• A final order made by consent without admissions. The explanation should say that the order was made by consent, that no admissions were made, and why the respondent agreed. It should not claim that the court found the allegations untrue, because the court made no such finding.
• A final order made after a contested hearing. The explanation must engage with what the court found. Arguing that the court was wrong is rarely persuasive. What usually matters is the context, what has changed since, and the evidence of that change.
• Cross orders. Where both partners obtained orders against each other, the explanation should set out both orders and the circumstances of each.

Breach of an intervention order

A breach of a partner visa intervention order is a criminal offence and is treated more seriously than the order itself. A breach can lead to a charge, a conviction or a finding of guilt without conviction. Each of those outcomes must be disclosed in answer to the relevant character question. A breach conviction is also a "relevant offence" for the sponsor limitation in regulation 1.20KC if the respondent is the sponsor, as explained below.

Where a breach occurred, the explanation should say what the breach involved. A text message sent in breach of a no-contact condition is not the same as a breach involving violence. Sentencing remarks, the police facts and the court outcome are the core documents. They belong with the other documents in the application, as listed in the firm's partner visa document checklist.

How does Ministerial Direction No. 110 treat family violence?

Ministerial Direction No. 110, made under section 499 of the Migration Act and in force from 21 June 2024, requires decision makers exercising the section 501 power to treat family violence committed by the non-citizen as a primary consideration, and it applies even where there is no conviction. Directions under section 499 bind delegates and the Administrative Review Tribunal when they exercise the relevant power. Directions are replaced from time to time, so the direction that applies is the one in force when the decision is made.

Direction No. 110 lists five primary considerations:

• protection of the Australian community;
• family violence committed by the non-citizen;
• the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
• the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
• the expectations of the Australian community.

The family violence consideration is not limited to convictions. Under the Direction it is engaged where the non-citizen has been convicted of an offence involving family violence, or where there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence. A court order, police records or a court's findings can be that kind of source. The Direction defines family violence as violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family, or causes the family member to be fearful.

The Direction treats family violence as very serious. It states that such conduct is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not refusing or cancelling the visa. A partner visa intervention order case that reaches the section 501 stage must therefore be prepared with that weight in mind.

What the Direction allows a decision maker to weigh

Family violence is one consideration, not the only one. The Direction also requires the decision maker to consider the applicant's ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and other matters. For a partner visa applicant, those ties often include the relationship with the sponsor, children of the relationship and family in Australia. The Direction also asks the decision maker to consider the seriousness of the conduct, how recent it was, whether it has been repeated, and evidence of rehabilitation.

That is where the evidence in a partner visa intervention order case does its work. The response should address every consideration the Direction requires, with evidence for each one, rather than relying on character references alone. Character matters of this kind are among the situations covered in the firm's article on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa. The firm's Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer profile describes the review and complex matter work the firm undertakes.

How should a partner visa intervention order be explained to the Department?

A partner visa intervention order should be explained in a short, factual written submission that sets out what the order was, why it was made, how it ended, what has happened since, and the documents that prove each point. The submission is the applicant's own account. It must be truthful and consistent with the court record, the police record and every other statement in the application.

The documents usually include:

• a copy of each order, interim and final, and any variation or revocation;
• the application for the order or the police application, where available;
• the court outcome for any related charge, including any finding of guilt without conviction;
• sentencing remarks or the court transcript where there was a criminal matter;
• Australian and overseas police certificates;
• evidence of completed behaviour change, anger management or counselling courses;
• evidence of compliance with the order and the absence of further incidents; and
• supporting statements from people who know the applicant well and who are aware of the order.

Supporting statements must be written by people who know about the order. A statement praising the applicant's character, written by someone who has never been told about the partner visa intervention order, carries little weight and can look misleading. The firm's guides to Form 888 for partner visas and to Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explain who can make a supporting statement and what it should contain.

What the explanation should not do

A partner visa intervention order explanation should not blame the protected person, attack the court, or describe the conduct in a way that minimises it. Decision makers read many of these submissions. Language that shifts responsibility usually counts against the applicant. The explanation also should not contain new allegations against the protected person unless they are relevant, supported by evidence and carefully presented.

The explanation should also match the relationship evidence. If the partner visa intervention order involved the current sponsor, the relationship statement cannot describe a relationship that never had difficulties. Inconsistency between the character explanation and the relationship evidence is one of the most common reasons these applications fail. The firm's Subclass 820 evidence checklist and its guide to partner visa evidence and how to prove a genuine relationship explain how the four aspects of the relationship are assessed.

Timing of the explanation

The best time to explain a partner visa intervention order is at lodgement, with the character answers. A Department request for more information under section 56 or an invitation to comment under section 57 comes with a short response period. A complete explanation prepared in advance means the applicant is not assembling court records under time pressure. Where an order is current and a criminal matter is still before a court, the timing of lodgement itself should be considered with legal advice. An immigration lawyer consultation before lodgement is the usual starting point, and a second opinion from an immigration lawyer can help where an application has already been prepared.

Does a partner visa intervention order matter at the permanent stage?

Yes. A partner visa intervention order made or disclosed at any point before the permanent Subclass 801 or Subclass 100 visa is decided remains relevant, because the character requirement applies again at the permanent stage. The partner visa is a two-stage visa. The temporary Subclass 820 or Subclass 309 visa is granted first, and the permanent visa is usually assessed later, with updated evidence and updated character information. The firm's article on Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 explains how the two stages fit together.

An order made after the temporary visa was granted is a change that should be notified. It will also be relevant to the character questions asked at the permanent stage. An applicant who holds a temporary partner visa and becomes the respondent to a partner visa intervention order should obtain advice promptly, because the order may raise both the character issue and a question about whether the relationship is continuing.

The sponsor limitation in regulation 1.20KC does not apply to the permanent Subclass 801 or Subclass 100 stage. A sponsor conviction obtained after the temporary visa was granted is therefore not assessed under that regulation at the permanent stage. It may still be relevant to the genuine relationship assessment, and to any family violence claim if the relationship ends.

Living arrangements while an order is in force

Many partner visa intervention order cases involve a period when the couple lived apart because of the order. A temporary separation required by a court order is not the same as a permanent separation. The relationship statement should explain the dates, the reason for living apart, how the couple kept in contact (where contact was allowed), and when they resumed living together. The evidence should show the relationship continued through that period. The firm's guides to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship and to the de facto partner visa and the 12-month rule deal with how periods apart are treated.

Bridging visa holders

An onshore applicant waiting for a Subclass 820 decision usually holds a bridging visa. Character concerns can affect bridging visas too, and an onshore applicant facing a new charge or a new partner visa intervention order should obtain advice before travelling or responding to the Department. The firm's guides to Bridging visa A and to bridging visas in Australia explain the bridging visa framework, and its guide to work rights while waiting for a Subclass 820 visa covers the conditions that usually apply.

When the Australian sponsor is the respondent: regulations 1.20KC and 1.20KD

Where the sponsor is the respondent, a partner visa intervention order does not by itself prevent sponsorship, but a conviction for a related offence can, because regulation 1.20KC turns on convictions for "relevant offences" and a "significant criminal record". Regulation 1.20KC is in Division 1.4B of the Migration Regulations. It came into effect on 18 November 2016 and applies to applications for Subclass 300, Subclass 309 and Subclass 820 visas made on or after that date. It does not apply to the permanent Subclass 100 or Subclass 801 stage.

Regulation 1.20KC sits alongside the other sponsorship limitations in Division 1.4B, such as the limit on how many partners a person can sponsor. The firm's page on partner visa sponsorship limitations and its article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explain those other limits. Approval of the sponsorship is a time of decision criterion for the Subclass 300, 309 and 820 visas, so the sponsor's record is assessed when the visa is decided.

What the Department can ask the sponsor for

Under subregulation 1.20KC(5), the Department can ask the sponsor to provide Australian police checks and police checks from any foreign country where the sponsor has lived for a total of 12 months or more in the relevant period. Under subregulation 1.20KC(6), the Department may refuse to approve the sponsorship if the sponsor does not provide the checks within a reasonable time. Department policy says the request must go to the sponsor, not to the applicant.

Under Department policy, police checks are not routinely requested from female sponsors unless there are concerns about the sponsor's character. A disclosed or discovered partner visa intervention order is the kind of information that can create that concern, whatever the sponsor's gender.

What counts as a relevant offence

Subregulation 1.20KC(2) defines a relevant offence as an offence against Commonwealth, state, territory or foreign law involving matters that include violence against a person (including assault and the threat of violence), harassment, molestation, intimidation or stalking, and the breach of an apprehended violence order or a similar order. It also covers offences involving firearms or other dangerous weapons, people smuggling, human trafficking, slavery and forced marriage, kidnapping and unlawful confinement, and attempting, aiding or abetting those offences.

The breach limb is the direct link to a partner visa intervention order. An order made against the sponsor is not itself a conviction. A conviction for breaching that order is a conviction for a relevant offence. So is a conviction for an assault arising from the same incident.

Department policy explains that a "conviction" for these purposes means a court has recorded a conviction. If a court found the sponsor guilty but did not record a conviction, or the sponsor completed a diversion or intervention programme on the basis that no conviction would be recorded, the Department cannot rely on that offence to refuse the sponsorship under regulation 1.20KC. Policy also states that the sponsorship cannot be refused under regulation 1.20KC because a criminal matter is still unresolved, although information about the charge may be relevant to whether the relationship is genuine.

What is a significant criminal record

Regulation 1.20KD defines a significant criminal record. A sponsor has one in relation to a relevant offence if the sponsor has been sentenced to death, to imprisonment for life, to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, or to two or more terms of imprisonment totalling 12 months or more.

A suspended sentence counts. Department policy states that a suspended sentence is a sentence to a term of imprisonment for this purpose, whether or not any time was served. A sponsor who received a suspended sentence of 12 months or more for a relevant offence has a significant criminal record. A quashed conviction, or a pardon that treats the person as never convicted, does not count.

Must refuse, unless reasonable to approve

Under subregulation 1.20KC(3), the sponsorship must be refused if the sponsor has been convicted of a relevant offence and has a significant criminal record in relation to it. Under subregulation 1.20KC(4), the sponsorship may still be approved if the decision maker considers it reasonable to do so. In deciding that question the decision maker must have regard to matters including:

• the length of time since the sponsor completed the sentence;
• the best interests of any children of the sponsor or the primary applicant; and
• the length of the relationship between the sponsor and the primary applicant.

Policy says the best interests of the children are treated as a primary consideration, and that court orders between the sponsor and a child, including an apprehended violence order, are relevant to that assessment. Policy also says the decision maker should consider whether the couple were together when the offending occurred, and whether the applicant knew about the sponsor's history before the Department disclosed it. Where a decision maker is inclined to approve under subregulation 1.20KC(4), policy says the applicant should be interviewed, ideally in person and without the sponsor present, to make sure the applicant is not being coerced.

Two Tribunal decisions show these issues in review. 2107808 (Migration) [2024] AATA 4136 was a Subclass 309 matter that the Tribunal remitted, recorded under the issues of sponsorship requirements, conviction on relevant offence and suspended sentence, that sponsorship may be approved if reasonable to do so, and remorse and no reoffending. Ellis (Migration) [2024] AATA 3411 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted, recorded under the issues of sponsorship approval, sponsor convicted of a "relevant offence", "significant criminal record", and whether reasonable to approve. Each decision turns on its own facts.

The sponsor's consent to disclose convictions

The Subclass 300, 309 and 820 criteria also require the sponsor to consent to the Department disclosing convictions for relevant offences to the applicant. If the sponsor refuses consent, the visa must be refused because the time of decision criterion in clause 300.222, 309.222 or 820.221 cannot be met. This is separate from the question whether the sponsorship is approved. A sponsor who is the respondent to a partner visa intervention order, and who has a related conviction, should understand before lodgement that the applicant may be told about it.

An order protecting the applicant: the family violence provisions

Where the relationship has ended and the applicant experienced family violence by the sponsor, an intervention order protecting the applicant can be evidence that allows the applicant to continue to the permanent partner visa under Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations. The family violence provisions apply to the Subclass 820, 801, 309 and 100 partner visas. They allow an eligible applicant to be considered for the permanent visa without remaining in a violent relationship.

The relationship does not have to have ended because of the violence. Department policy states this directly. What matters is that the relationship was genuine and continuing until it ended, and that the family violence, or part of it, occurred while the relationship existed. The firm's family violence partner visa lawyers page explains the provisions in more detail, and its article on what happens to a Subclass 820 application if the relationship breaks down covers the wider position when a relationship ends.

Is an intervention order judicially determined family violence?

Yes, if the order was made by a state or territory court against the sponsor for the protection of the applicant, after the sponsor was given an opportunity to be heard or to make submissions. Subregulation 1.23(4) treats such an order as judicially determined evidence of family violence. Where the evidence meets subregulations 1.23(2) to (7), the decision maker must accept that the applicant experienced family violence, cannot take conflicting information such as the sponsor's denial into account on that question, and cannot refer the claim to an independent expert.

Department policy explains how this applies to the different kinds of partner visa intervention order:

• Final or confirmed orders are acceptable, because they are made after the respondent had the opportunity to respond.
• Interim orders are acceptable only if the court gave the respondent an opportunity to respond. It is the opportunity that matters, not whether the respondent used it.
• Ex parte orders, made before the respondent was given an opportunity to respond, are not acceptable under subregulation 1.23(4).
• Bail orders are not acceptable as evidence of family violence.
• Orders made after separation are acceptable, so long as part of the violence occurred while the relationship existed.

Policy also states that the order must protect the applicant, not the sponsor, and that only orders of an Australian court qualify. Other judicially determined evidence includes a Family Law Act injunction and a conviction or finding of guilt against the sponsor for an offence of violence against the applicant.

Non-judicially determined claims

Where there is no qualifying court order, the applicant can make a non-judicially determined claim. Under subregulation 1.23(8), a joint undertaking given to a court by the applicant and the sponsor in proceedings alleging violence can be the evidence. Under subregulation 1.23(9), the applicant provides a statutory declaration that meets regulation 1.25, together with at least two items of evidence from different categories in the legislative instrument made for that purpose. The categories include documents from police, medical practitioners, family violence support services, social workers, psychologists and others acting in their professional capacity. This is one of the few places where the law specifically requires a statutory declaration rather than a supporting statement.

If the decision maker is not satisfied that relevant family violence occurred, the claim must be referred to an independent expert. "Relevant family violence" is defined in regulation 1.21 as actual or threatened conduct towards the applicant, a family member or property that causes the applicant to reasonably fear for, or be reasonably apprehensive about, the applicant's own wellbeing or safety. Policy recognises that it includes psychological and financial abuse, coercive control and immigration abuse.

The relationship is assessed first

Before any family violence claim is assessed, the decision maker must be satisfied that the couple were in a genuine and continuing spouse or de facto relationship until it ended. This is where many claims are lost. An application whose relationship evidence is thin cannot be saved by a strong court order.

Tribunal decisions in this area show the point. 1902818 (Migration) [2023] AATA 778 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted, recorded under the issues of relationship ceased, genuine and continuing relationship before family violence, joint major asset and liabilities, and interim intervention order. Siyad (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2129 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted, recorded under the issues of relationship ceased, genuine and continuing relationship before family violence, coercive control, and joint utility and tenancy accounts. 2305121 (Migration) [2025] ARTA 455 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted, recorded under the issues of genuine and continuing relationship before relationship ceased, joint bank account, social and government recognition, and non-judicially determined claim of family violence. Javed (Migration) [2021] AATA 3007 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted, recorded under the issues of genuine spousal relationship ceased, family violence claim, and evidence tested before a Court.

What if the couple are still together and an order exists between them?

A partner visa can still be granted where an intervention order exists between a couple who remain together, but the order must be disclosed where the applicant is the respondent, and the genuine relationship assessment must deal with it openly. The definitions of spouse and de facto partner in sections 5F and 5CB of the Migration Act require a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, a genuine and continuing relationship, and living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. An order between the couple does not automatically mean those requirements are not met.

Many orders allow the parties to live together and to have contact, provided the respondent does not commit violence, make threats or engage in other prohibited conduct. Other orders prohibit contact or living together. The conditions of the order matter. If a no-contact order is in force and the couple are living together, the respondent may be in breach, and that is a serious matter that requires immediate legal advice before anything is said to the Department.

The relationship statement and the evidence should explain the partner visa intervention order honestly within the history of the relationship. The Department will ask how the relationship continued, what has changed, and whether the applicant is acting freely. Department policy on sponsorship assessment emphasises making sure that applicants are not being forced, coerced or intimidated. In a partner visa intervention order case where the couple are together, the evidence should show that both partners are participating freely and that the relationship is safe.

When the applicant holds an order but the relationship continues

If the applicant is the protected person and the couple remain together, the applicant is not asked to declare the order in the character questions. The order may still be relevant to the relationship assessment, and it may become relevant to Division 1.5 if the relationship later ends. Any applicant in this position should obtain confidential legal advice. The firm's Schedule 3 waiver and Subclass 820 visa pages explain other onshore issues that can arise at the same time.

Partner visa intervention order refusals and Tribunal review

If a partner visa is refused because of a partner visa intervention order issue, the refusal can usually be reviewed, but the review deadline is short and strictly applied, and the review pathway depends on whether the refusal was under section 65 or section 501. A refusal under section 65, for example for the genuine relationship, the sponsorship or PIC 4020, is generally reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal. A refusal under section 501 has its own review rules.

At the Tribunal, the applicant can present new evidence and give oral evidence. The Tribunal decides the matter afresh. In a partner visa intervention order case, the review is often the first time that the full court record, the context of the order and the relationship evidence are properly put together. The firm's guides to partner visa refusal appeal options and what to expect in an ART review explain the process. The firm's partner visa refusals and visa refusals and ART appeals pages describe the review work it undertakes, and its judicial review page covers court review where a Tribunal decision contains a legal error.

Common reasons these applications fail

The firm's article on why partner visas get refused covers refusals generally. In partner visa intervention order matters, the recurring problems are:

• the order was not disclosed, leading to a PIC 4020 finding;
• the explanation conflicted with the court record or the police facts;
• supporting statements were written by people who did not know about the order;
• the relationship evidence did not deal with the order, so the decision maker doubted the relationship;
• the sponsor did not provide police checks, or did not consent to disclosure; and
• in a family violence claim, the court order did not meet subregulation 1.23(4), or the relationship evidence was too weak.

Where My Migration Lawyers acts in partner visa intervention order matters

My Migration Lawyers acts for clients across Australia and overseas, with consultations by video. The firm acts in partner matters for clients in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. Because the name of the order differs between states, a partner visa intervention order in Victoria or South Australia, an AVO in New South Wales and a domestic violence order in Queensland are each read against the law of the state that made them.

The firm also advises on wider migration matters through its immigration lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta.

How My Migration Lawyers helps with a partner visa intervention order

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex partner matters, acts in many partner visa intervention order matters of each of the three kinds described in this article, and is capable of handling them from first disclosure through to Tribunal review. The work is careful and document driven, because these matters are decided on the accuracy of the record.

In a partner visa intervention order matter, the firm:

• identifies which of the three directions applies, and whether more than one does;
• obtains and reads the court file, the orders, the police facts and any criminal outcome before any character question is answered;
• prepares the character answers and Form 80 so that every order, charge and outcome is disclosed accurately;
• prepares a written submission explaining the order, its outcome and what has changed since, presenting the client's own account in the form the law requires, with the client reviewing and correcting it before it is signed;
• addresses PIC 4001 and, where the matter reaches section 501, each consideration in the Ministerial Direction in force;
• where the sponsor is the respondent, advises on police checks, regulation 1.20KC, regulation 1.20KD and the consent to disclosure;
• where the order protects the client and the relationship has ended, assesses whether the order meets subregulation 1.23(4) and prepares the Division 1.5 claim with the relationship evidence;
• responds to section 56 requests and section 57 natural justice letters; and
• acts in Administrative Review Tribunal review where a partner visa is refused.

Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer, oversees the firm's partner visa intervention order work. The firm cannot promise any outcome. What it can do is make sure the Department or the Tribunal has a complete, accurate and well-supported account of the partner visa intervention order before a decision is made.

Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers to discuss your partner visa intervention order matter. You can also call 1300 040 300.