Partner Visa Lawyer for Applicants With Visa History Problems

What does a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems do?

A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems reconstructs the applicant's complete Australian immigration record, identifies every overstay, unlawful period, bridging visa, cancellation, refusal and visa condition that affects a partner visa, and then advises the couple on whether a valid application can be made, which pathway is open, and what evidence and legal submissions each problem requires. The relationship still matters. But on these files the relationship is not the first question. The first question is what the Department's records say about the applicant, and what those records mean under the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994.

This article explains what a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems actually does at My Migration Lawyers, step by step, on files where the applicant has overstayed, been unlawful, held a Bridging visa E, had a visa cancelled, had a visa refused, carried a condition 8503, or given an answer to the Department in the past that does not match the truth. It does not repeat the general law of partner visas, which is set out in the complete guide to partner visas in Australia. Couples who already know they need advice can go straight to our partner visa lawyers page.

Who this article is written for

This article is written for couples where the partner who is not an Australian citizen or permanent resident has a past in the Australian visa system that worries them. Some have been told by a friend that their history makes a partner visa impossible. Some have been told the opposite, that a marriage fixes everything. Neither statement is reliable. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems looks at the actual record and gives advice on that record, not on what happened to someone else.

The guide to partner visa lawyers in Australia and the article on when an immigration lawyer is needed for a partner visa cover the wider decision about legal help. This article is narrower. It is about the record itself and the work a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems does with it.

What counts as a visa history problem in a partner visa application?

A visa history problem is any fact in the applicant's past dealings with the Department that can affect whether a partner visa application is valid, whether a criterion for grant can be met, or whether the Department will believe the applicant. In practice, a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems sees the same patterns again and again.

• Overstays and unlawful periods. The applicant stayed after a visa expired and became an unlawful non-citizen, for a few days or for many years.
• Bridging visas. The applicant holds, or has held, a Bridging visa A, B, C or E, often after an earlier application or a review. A bridging visa is not a substantive visa.
• Cancellations. A student, skilled, visitor or other visa was cancelled, for example for a breach of conditions, incorrect information or character.
• Refusals. An earlier application for any visa was refused, including a refusal that was affirmed by the Tribunal.
• A previous partner visa refusal. An earlier partner application, with the same partner or a different one, was refused.
• Condition 8503. A visitor or other visa carried a No Further Stay condition.
• Earlier answers to the Department. A previous application recorded the applicant as single, did not list a spouse or child, or used details that are now inconsistent.
• Removal or departure history. The applicant previously left Australia while unlawful or on a bridging visa, or was removed.
• The sponsor's own history. The Australian partner's visa was cancelled, or the sponsor came to Australia on a partner visa.

Most files have more than one of these features. A student visa holder who stopped studying may have had the visa cancelled, then held a bridging visa while seeking review, then become unlawful when the review ended, and may have given an answer about marital status in an earlier visitor application. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems has to see how those events connect, because each one engages a different rule. The article on why Subclass 820 visas are refused shows how many refusals come from rules of this kind rather than from doubt about the relationship.

Why the visa history is read before the relationship evidence

A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems reads the visa history first because some visa history rules decide whether the application is valid at all, and a strong relationship cannot rescue an application that was never validly made. Other visa history rules are criteria for grant that apply whatever the relationship evidence shows.

The order of work is practical. Validity is a pass or fail test on the day of lodgement. If condition 8503 still applies and has not been waived, or if section 48 applies and its extra requirements are not met, the application fails before anyone reads the couple's photographs or joint bank statements. Next come the Schedule 3 criteria, which apply on the day of lodgement but are assessed at the time of decision. Then come the public interest criteria, such as PIC 4020, which look back at what the applicant has told the Department before. Only after those questions are answered does the genuineness of the relationship become the central issue.

That is the difference between a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems and general partner visa preparation. In a standard file, the evidence of a genuine relationship carries the application. In a visa history file, the evidence is still needed, but it sits behind a set of legal gates. Each gate has to be opened first.

How a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems reconstructs the visa history

A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems reconstructs the visa history from official sources: VEVO for the current visa and its conditions, the Department's records available to an appointed representative, and, where needed, a freedom of information request for the Department's own file. The client's memory is a starting point, not the record. Most people do not remember the exact date a bridging visa was granted, or the exact wording of a question they answered in an application years ago, and they should not be expected to.

VEVO: the current visa and its conditions

The first step is a check of Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO). My Migration Lawyers runs the VEVO check itself, using the passport details already on file. VEVO shows the visa the person currently holds, its grant date, its expiry where relevant and the conditions attached to it, including condition 8503 and work conditions. It is the fastest way to confirm whether the applicant holds a substantive visa today, holds a bridging visa, or holds no visa at all.

VEVO has limits. It shows the current position. It does not show the full chain of earlier visas, refusals and cancellations, and it does not show what the applicant said in earlier applications. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems uses VEVO as the first check, never as the only check.

Department records available to the representative

Once the firm is appointed as the applicant's representative, it can obtain information from the Department that is held about the applicant's applications. The appointment is made on Form 956, which is explained in the article on Form 956 and 956A. The applicant's ImmiAccount may also hold correspondence, grant notices and decision letters for applications that were lodged online. The guide on how to create an ImmiAccount explains how that account works.

Freedom of information requests for the Department's file

Where the history is long, unclear or disputed, My Migration Lawyers lodges a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for the applicant's personal records held by the Department. An FOI request can produce copies of earlier application forms, the answers given in them, decision records for refusals and cancellations, notes of interviews, and movement records showing arrivals and departures. Those documents are the Department's own version of the applicant's history, and they are the version the Department will rely on when it decides the partner visa.

For a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems, the FOI file is often the most important document in the matter. It shows exactly what the applicant told the Department about relationships, children, previous marriages, employment and criminal history. It shows the reasons given for any earlier refusal or cancellation. It shows the dates that decide whether criterion 3001 is met, whether section 48 applies and whether a No Further Stay condition was ever imposed. The FOI process takes time, so the firm requests the file early and plans the lodgement date around it.

What the client is asked for, and what the client is not asked for

My Migration Lawyers does not ask clients for immigration documents they realistically do not keep. Clients are not asked to find old bridging visa grant notices, copies of tribunal applications, previous passports or old visa application forms. The firm obtains the visa and immigration history itself, from VEVO, Department records and Tribunal records, and through FOI where necessary.

The client is asked only for what the client can readily produce: a current passport, identity documents, the relationship evidence the couple already hold, and an honest account of what happened. That account matters. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems compares the client's account with the official record, and where the two differ, works out why before the Department does.

Building the chronology

The output of this work is a single written chronology of the applicant's time in Australia. It lists each arrival and departure, each visa held and the date it ceased, each application made and its outcome, each condition imposed, each period without a substantive visa and each bridging visa. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems then marks against that chronology every legal rule it engages. The chronology becomes the basis of the written advice, the waiver submissions and, if needed, the response to any section 57 letter.

What a partner visa costs in government charges (as at October 2026)

As at October 2026, the Department of Home Affairs partner visa application charge for the combined Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application is from AUD 11,710 for most applicants, and from AUD 1,955 for Subclass 300 holders applying in Australia. One charge covers both stages of the combined application, and the same applies to the combined Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 application. The Department's page also states that a lower charge applies from 1 July 2026 for eligible Pacific Island and Timor-Leste citizens, and the current figure should be checked on the Department's page before lodgement. Charges are reviewed each 1 July.

Police certificates, health examinations, translations and biometrics are extra costs. The application charge is generally not refunded if the visa is refused, and it is not a cost any couple wants to pay on an application that turns out to be invalid. That is why a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems resolves validity before the charge is paid. The article on how much a Subclass 820 partner visa costs breaks the charges down.

My Migration Lawyers charges its own professional fees as fixed fees under a written costs agreement, staged so that the visa history review and advice come before lodgement work. The articles on fixed-fee immigration lawyers and on partner visa lawyers' fees and how to choose explain what a fixed fee should cover.

Overstays and periods of unlawful status

An applicant who has overstayed and does not hold a substantive visa when the onshore partner application is lodged must deal with Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 for the Subclass 820, and those criteria can be waived only if the Department is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying them. An overstay does not end the partner pathway. It changes the legal test, and the visa history becomes the evidence for that test.

The Department's policy explains that Schedule 3 exists to encourage people to apply for further stay while they still hold a substantive visa. A person who applies within the time allowed and with a clean record of compliance is in a different position from a person who has been unlawful for years. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems works out exactly where the applicant sits on that spectrum, using dates from the official record rather than estimates. The live articles on Schedule 3 criteria for applicants who are unlawful and on the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver explain the criteria in more detail.

Criterion 3001 and the 28-day window

Criterion 3001 generally requires the application to be made within 28 days after the relevant day, which for most applicants is the day the last substantive visa ceased. The Department's policy explains how the days are counted, including that an application lodged on the first business day after a weekend or public holiday that ends the period can still meet the criterion.

The 28-day window is where the precise visa history matters most. Was the last substantive visa the student visa that was cancelled, or a later visa that the applicant held for a short time? Did a bridging visa granted on a review application change the relevant day? A difference of a few days decides whether criterion 3001 is met or must be waived. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems confirms the relevant day from the Department's records before advising the couple.

Criteria 3003 and 3004: the six requirements

Criterion 3004 applies to an applicant who ceased to hold a substantive visa on or after 1 September 1994, or who entered Australia unlawfully on or after that date and has not since been granted a substantive visa. Criterion 3003 is its companion for the older group of applicants who were unlawful before 1 September 1994. Where either applies, the applicant must meet all six requirements set out in paragraphs (c) to (h) of the criterion. The Department's policy explains that they include these: the applicant became unlawful because of factors beyond the applicant's control; there are compelling reasons to grant the visa; the applicant substantially complied with the conditions of the last substantive visa; the applicant would otherwise have been entitled to the visa applied for; and a pre-1994 no further stay condition did not apply to the last visa or entry permit.

The policy states that the test of factors beyond the applicant's control has two parts. There must be factors that caused the applicant to become unlawful, and those factors must have been beyond the applicant's control. It is not enough that hardship existed. The hardship must have caused the loss of status. A serious accident or illness that made it impossible to apply is the clearest example the policy gives. Claims that the applicant did not realise the visa had ended, or misunderstood its conditions, are harder.

What a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems does on an overstay file

On an overstay file, a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems does four things. First, the lawyer fixes the relevant dates from the official record: when the last substantive visa ceased, how long the applicant has been without one, and whether any bridging visa interrupted that period. Second, the lawyer identifies the facts that may support compelling reasons, such as an Australian citizen child of the relationship, the sponsor's health or care needs, the length of the relationship and the practical consequences of the applicant leaving Australia. Third, the lawyer advises on the independent evidence for each fact: medical reports, school and care records, employment records and records about the children. Fourth, the lawyer prepares a legal submission that addresses the Department's own policy, rather than a general appeal to sympathy.

The Department's procedural instruction for the Subclass 820 states that, as a general rule, a genuine relationship and the hardship of separation if the applicant had to apply offshore are not, on their own, compelling reasons to waive Schedule 3. That is why the submission must go further than the relationship. Our Schedule 3 waiver page explains how My Migration Lawyers acts in these matters.

Bridging visas in a partner visa history

A bridging visa keeps a person lawful while an application or review is pending, but it is not a substantive visa, so an applicant who lodges a partner visa while holding only a bridging visa is treated for Schedule 3 purposes as a person without a substantive visa. Many applicants are surprised by this. They have been lawful the whole time, yet the Schedule 3 criteria still apply.

The type of bridging visa matters. A Bridging visa A or B usually follows a valid application made while the applicant held a substantive visa. A Bridging visa C or E is usually granted to a person who did not hold a substantive visa when they applied, or who is making arrangements to depart. The guide to bridging visas in Australia, the articles on Bridging visa A and Bridging visa B, and the article on work rights while waiting for a Subclass 820 explain the differences.

Bridging visa E holders

A Bridging visa E is commonly held by people who have become unlawful and then approached the Department, or who have lodged a further application after their status lapsed. The Department's policy is that an initial Bridging visa E is generally granted with a no-work condition, condition 8101, together with conditions about study, reporting and notifying a change of address. A person who wants to work must apply for a further bridging visa and show a compelling need to work.

For a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems, a Bridging visa E in the history is a signal to look carefully at three things: when the last substantive visa ceased, whether the applicant has complied with the bridging visa's own conditions, and whether a partner application lodged now will give the applicant a further bridging visa. A valid partner application can support a bridging visa. An invalid one cannot.

Travel on a bridging visa and the "last entry" date

Travel matters in a visa history. For applicants to whom section 48 applies, the Migration Regulations provide that an applicant who leaves and re-enters Australia while holding a bridging visa is taken to have been continuously in Australia for the purpose of the rule about previous partner visa refusals. Travel on a Bridging visa B does not reset the "last entry" date for that purpose. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems checks the movement records before relying on any departure.

Visa cancellations and their effect on a partner visa

A visa cancellation affects a partner visa in three ways: it can leave the applicant without a substantive visa, which brings in Schedule 3; it can make section 48 apply, because a cancellation since the last entry counts in the same way as a refusal; and, depending on the ground of cancellation, it can raise PIC 4020 or character questions. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems needs the cancellation decision itself, not a summary of it.

The ground of cancellation is critical. A student visa cancelled for a breach of study conditions raises different issues from a visa cancelled because the Department found incorrect information in the application, and both differ from a cancellation on character grounds under section 501. The decision record states the provision used and the reasons. It also shows whether the cancellation was reviewed, and whether the review set the cancellation aside. Where the Tribunal set a cancellation aside, the effect can depend on the provision used, so the lawyer reads the Tribunal decision as well.

Cancellation history can also belong to the sponsor. If the Australian partner's own permanent visa was cancelled, the sponsor may no longer be an eligible sponsor unless the cancellation is set aside. Our visa cancellations page explains how My Migration Lawyers acts where a cancellation is still current.

Previous visa refusals and section 48

Section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 applies, subject to some exceptions, to a person in Australia who does not hold a substantive visa and who has had a visa refused or cancelled since last entering Australia, and it limits that person to applying onshore for a small group of visas, of which the partner visa is one. The refusal does not need to be of a partner visa. A refused student visa, visitor visa or skilled visa is enough.

Where section 48 applies, the onshore partner application must meet extra validity requirements in item 1124B of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations. The online sponsorship must be lodged with the application. Two statutory declarations must be lodged with the application, each made by an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen who is not the partner, declaring that the couple are in a married or de facto relationship, and made no more than 6 weeks before lodgement. Form 888 statements do not satisfy this rule. The article on partner visa after a visa refusal explains the section 48 pathway.

How a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems tests section 48

Whether section 48 applies is a question of record, not opinion. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems identifies the date of the applicant's last entry to Australia, lists every refusal and cancellation since that date, checks whether any refused application was itself only a bridging visa application, and confirms what visa the applicant will hold on the planned lodgement day. Applicants are often told section 48 applies when it does not, for example because the refusal happened before a later departure and re-entry on a substantive visa. Others assume it does not apply when it does.

When a previous partner visa refusal blocks a second onshore application

Subparagraph 1124B(3)(e)(i) of Schedule 1 provides that an applicant to whom section 48 applies cannot make a valid onshore partner application if a partner visa has already been refused since the applicant last entered Australia. This is one of the hardest visa history problems. The second application is not weak. It is invalid. Where this rule applies, a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems advises on the realistic alternatives, which usually means review of the earlier refusal if it is still within time, or an offshore application. The partner visa refusals page and the article on partner visa refusal appeal options explain those paths.

A previous partner refusal also matters outside section 48. The earlier decision record contains findings about the relationship, the evidence and the applicant's credibility. The Department will read those findings again. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems reads the earlier decision line by line and identifies which findings can be answered with new evidence and which cannot.

Condition 8503 that survives the visa it was attached to

Condition 8503 prevents the holder from being granted a substantive visa in Australia, other than a protection visa or certain temporary visas, and the Department's policy confirms that the condition continues to apply after the visa it was attached to has ceased, for as long as the person remains in Australia, unless it is waived. This is one of the most widely misunderstood visa history rules.

Many couples believe that once a visitor visa has expired, its No Further Stay condition expires with it. It does not. The Department's policy states that a "no further application" condition continues to apply to former visa holders, including bridging visa holders and unlawful non-citizens. It ceases to have effect when the person leaves Australia. Until then, a partner visa application made in Australia is generally not valid unless the condition has been waived first. The article on the Subclass 820 visa and condition 8503 and the guide to moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa explain the condition.

What a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems does on an 8503 file

A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems confirms from VEVO and the grant record whether condition 8503 was imposed on any visa held since the last entry, not only the current one. If it was, the lawyer advises whether a waiver request has realistic prospects. In general terms, the waiver requires compelling and compassionate circumstances that developed after the visa was granted, over which the person had no control, and that resulted in a major change in circumstances. Meeting a partner after arrival is usually not enough on its own. Where a waiver is unlikely, the lawyer advises on an offshore Subclass 309 application, with the Australian partner as sponsor, and on how leaving Australia ends the condition.

Exclusion periods: what applies to partner visas and what does not

PIC 4013 and PIC 4014, the three-year exclusion periods that follow certain cancellations and departures while unlawful or on a Bridging visa C, D or E, are not among the criteria listed for the Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 visas. The Department's own exclusion periods policy gives the Subclass 309 as an example of a visa that does not include them. This is a point that is often stated wrongly, and it causes couples to delay an application for no reason.

That does not mean a partner visa has no exclusion rules. The Department's policy for the Subclass 309 and the Subclass 300 states that an applicant who has previously been in Australia must satisfy special return criteria 5001 and 5002. Special return criterion 5001 is a permanent bar for people who were deported, or whose visa was cancelled under section 501, 501A or 501B and not later restored in the ways the criterion allows. Special return criterion 5002 is a 12-month exclusion after removal from Australia under sections 198, 199 or 205, which can be waived for compelling or compassionate circumstances affecting an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.

What a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems checks

A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems checks the movement records and cancellation history for removal, deportation and section 501 events, and then advises which exclusion criteria, if any, apply to the pathway the couple are considering. The same history can be harmless for one partner visa and decisive for another. That is one reason the choice between an onshore and offshore application is made only after the history is known.

Earlier answers to the Department and PIC 4020

PIC 4020 requires a partner visa applicant to satisfy the Department that they have not given a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the current application or a visa held in the 12 months before it was made, and that the Department is satisfied of their identity. For partner visas the bogus document and false information parts can be waived where compelling or compassionate circumstances affecting an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen justify the grant. The Department's policy states that there is no waiver for the identity requirements.

Earlier answers are a classic visa history problem. A visitor visa application that described the applicant as single when they were married, a student application that did not list a child, a previous partner application that did not disclose an earlier marriage: each of these can surface when the Department compares the new partner application with the old file. The Department's policy, referring to the Full Federal Court decision in Trivedi, states that PIC 4020 requires "purposeful falsity", and that an application cannot be refused under PIC 4020 where the applicant can explain an innocent mistake. The onus is on the applicant to explain.

Non-grant periods after a PIC 4020 refusal

PIC 4020 also looks back at earlier refusals. The Department's policy states that an applicant cannot meet PIC 4020 if they, or a member of their family unit, were refused a visa under PIC 4020 for bogus documents or false or misleading information in the three years before the current application, or for failing to satisfy the Department as to identity in the ten years before the current application. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems checks every earlier refusal for a PIC 4020 ground and calculates whether a non-grant period is still running.

What a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems does with earlier answers

A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems compares every earlier application obtained through the FOI file with the facts of the new partner application. Where an inconsistency exists, the lawyer advises the couple on how it should be explained, with what evidence, and whether to raise it in the application rather than wait for the Department to raise it. The explanation must be the applicant's own true account. The firm does not construct an explanation. It identifies the inconsistency, asks the applicant what happened, and advises on how that account is put to the Department. If a section 57 letter is issued, the firm prepares the response. The guides to responding to a section 56 request for more information and to the section 57 natural justice letter explain those steps.

The sponsor's visa history

The sponsor's own visa history can be as important as the applicant's, because the sponsor must be an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, and the sponsorship rules look at the sponsor's past partner sponsorships and the sponsor's own partner visa. A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems checks both sides of the couple.

Two questions come up repeatedly. The first is whether the sponsor's permanent status is secure. If the sponsor's permanent visa has been cancelled, the sponsor may not be eligible unless the cancellation is set aside. The second is whether the sponsorship limitation in regulation 1.20J applies. In general terms, regulation 1.20J limits a sponsor to two partner sponsorships in a lifetime, at least five years apart, and also limits a sponsor who was granted a partner visa as an applicant within the last five years, unless there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor. The firm's sponsorship limitations page and the article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explain the rule.

Choosing between an onshore and an offshore application after a visa history problem

The choice between an onshore Subclass 820 application and an offshore Subclass 309 application is one of the main decisions a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems advises on, because Schedule 3, section 48 and condition 8503 apply to applications made in Australia, while an offshore application avoids those rules but brings in others. Neither pathway is automatically better. The right answer depends on the record.

An onshore application keeps the applicant in Australia, with a bridging visa if the application is valid, but requires the Schedule 3 criteria to be met or waived where the applicant has no substantive visa, and requires the section 48 rules to be met where they apply. An offshore application requires the applicant to leave Australia, which ends condition 8503 and removes the Schedule 3 question, but the applicant must then meet the special return criteria, PIC 4020 and the other public interest criteria from outside Australia, and must usually be outside Australia when the visa is granted. Where the applicant leaves, the firm's client for the offshore application is usually the Australian partner, who gathers the evidence and deals with the firm. The application is lodged online.

A partner visa lawyer for visa history problems sets out both pathways in writing, with the legal risks of each, the evidence each requires and the practical consequences for the couple, including time apart. The firm's pages on the Subclass 820 onshore partner visa, the Subclass 309 offshore partner visa and the Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa, and the Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 explainer, help couples compare them. The live guides to the onshore Subclass 820 visa and the Subclass 820 partner visa requirements cover the standard onshore criteria.

Disclosing visa history in the new partner application

A partner visa application must disclose the applicant's immigration history accurately, and a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems makes sure the new application is consistent with the Department's records, because an inaccurate answer in the new application can create a fresh PIC 4020 problem on top of the old one. The safest file is one where nothing in the history surprises the Department.

The partner application asks about previous visa applications, refusals, cancellations and periods in Australia. The Form 80 personal particulars form, where requested, asks for a detailed history of travel, addresses and employment. The guide to Form 80 explains how to complete it without errors. The firm completes these answers from the chronology, so that dates and outcomes match the official record.

The couple's own evidence stays their own

The relationship statement and the Form 888 statements are the couple's and the witnesses' own evidence. Where the visa history touches the relationship, for example a period apart while the applicant was overseas, or an earlier application that described the relationship differently, the firm reviews those statements, identifies gaps and inconsistencies with the record, and the couple correct and confirm their own words. The articles on the partner visa relationship statement and on Form 888 explain those documents.

Changes after lodgement

The visa history keeps running after lodgement. A change of address, a new bridging visa, an overseas trip, a criminal charge or the end of the relationship must be notified to the Department. The article on Form 1022 and when to lodge it explains the obligation. Where the relationship ends, the article on what happens when a Subclass 820 relationship breaks down and the firm's family violence page explain the limited grounds on which the visa may still be granted.

If the partner visa is refused: 28 days and AUD 3,727

If a partner visa is refused, an application for review by the Administrative Review Tribunal must be made within 28 days after the day the applicant is notified of the decision, or 7 days if the applicant is in immigration detention, under subsection 347(3) of the Migration Act 1958. The deadline cannot be extended. A late application is not properly made, and the ART has no jurisdiction to hear it.

As at October 2026, the ART fee for review of a reviewable migration decision, which includes a partner visa refusal, is AUD 3,727 for fees paid on or after 1 July 2026. The fee must be paid before the deadline for applying for review. A 50% reduction may be granted for financial hardship, and the ART refunds 50% of the fee paid if the decision is set aside or varied or the matter is remitted to the Department.

For an onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 refusal, the applicant applies for review and must be in Australia. For a Subclass 309 refusal where the applicant is outside Australia, the Australian sponsor applies for review under subsection 338(5). On a visa history file the refusal ground is often Schedule 3, section 48 validity, condition 8503 or PIC 4020. The Tribunal can consider new evidence about compelling reasons and can make its own decision on whether a criterion is met or should be waived. The firm's visa refusals page, the ART review guide, the article on when a visa appeal lawyer is needed and the guide to why partner visas get refused explain the process. A couple who have just received a refusal should obtain urgent immigration lawyer advice straight away, while the review period is still open.

What Tribunal decisions show about visa history problems

Tribunal decisions show that visa history problems, including late applications after an overstay, long unlawful periods, bridging visa histories, cancellations, earlier false answers and previous partner refusals, are examined closely by the Tribunal and can be reconsidered when the evidence is properly put. Every decision listed below was remitted, which means the Tribunal sent the matter back to the Department to reconsider with directions or findings. A remittal is not a visa grant. The headnotes of these decisions do not state the nationality of any party, and nothing about nationality should be read into them. Each case is described only by the issues reported in its headnote.

Late applications and unlawful periods

• Raganas (Migration) [2020] AATA 2401, Subclass 820: the reported issues were that the applicant held no substantive visa at the time of application, or within 28 days before it, and that the last substantive visa was held more than three years earlier.
• 1814075 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3700, Subclass 820: the reported issues were an application made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held, two periods of unlawful residence and bridging visas, and the length of the relationship.
• Hou (Migration) [2020] AATA 6018, Subclass 820: the reported issues were an application made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held, a lengthy period as an unlawful non-resident, and compelling reasons for not applying the criterion.
• Bamba (Migration) [2020] AATA 1868, Subclass 820: the reported issues were an applicant on a bridging visa after lengthy unlawful residence, an application lodged more than 28 days after the applicant last held a substantive visa, and waiver of the criterion.
• Carman (Migration) [2023] AATA 3822, Subclass 820: the reported issues were the Schedule 3 criteria, factors beyond the applicant's control, waiver of the requirement and compelling reasons.

Bridging visas, cancellations and a poor migration history

• Yuan (Migration) [2024] AATA 3638, Subclass 820: the reported issues were an application made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held, a bridging visa later granted in association with another review application, and cumulative factors.
• 1814675 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3017, Subclass 820: the reported issues were an application made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held, the cancellation of a student visa and a lengthy unlawful stay, and the sponsor's mental health.
• Li (Migration) [2020] AATA 5418, Subclass 820: the reported issues were an application made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held, compelling reasons for not applying the criteria, and possible manipulation of visa history.
• Gong (Migration) [2018] AATA 5690, Subclass 820: the reported issues were the Schedule 3 criteria, an application lodged outside the relevant timeframe, compelling reasons and a poor migration history.
• Rahi (Migration) [2019] AATA 5361, Subclass 820: the reported issues were no substantive visa at the time of application, that the applicant used the visa system to prolong their stay, multiple visa applications, and an Australian born child with the sponsor.

Earlier answers to the Department

• TRUONG (Migration) [2024] AATA 680, Subclass 820: the reported issues were false or misleading information in a material particular, a previous visitor visa application, marital status, and a couple who were separated but still living together.
• Pham (Migration) [2021] AATA 4350, Subclass 820: the reported issues were false or misleading information in a previous visitor visa application, an answer of "married" when the applicant was separated at the time and later divorced, and a credible witness and evidence.
• 2107016 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2250, Subclass 820: the reported issues were that the parties provided false or misleading information, that the applicants failed to disclose details of a previous relationship and a Subclass 300 visa application, and the sponsor's mental health.
• Xiao (Migration) [2024] AATA 575, Subclass 820: the reported issues were false or misleading information, a false claim of a genuine spousal relationship in an earlier partner application, waiver of the requirement, and Australian citizen children.
• Tipong (Migration) [2019] AATA 5652, Subclass 309: the reported issues were identity, previous visitor visa applications using different identity details and documents, and previous documents issued with wrong details.

Previous partner applications and offshore visa histories

• Taylor (Migration) [2024] AATA 945, Subclass 309: the reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, a visa history including an overstay, previous applications, the withdrawal of a previous sponsorship and a claim of family violence, a valid marriage and supporting statements.
• Nguyen (Migration) [2024] AATA 354, Subclass 309: the reported issues were a previous refusal on another ground that had been remitted with a finding of credibility and commitment, a genuine and continuing relationship, and a valid marriage.
• Belevski (Migration) [2025] ARTA 394, Subclass 309: the reported issues were an application with a previous partner that had been refused and a relationship that had ceased, a genuine and continuing relationship, a valid marriage, and the review applicant's family commitments and fear of flying.

The sponsor's visa history

• Vispo (Migration) [2023] AATA 694, Subclass 820: the reported issues were that the sponsor's permanent visa was cancelled and that the Tribunal, differently constituted, set aside the cancellation of the sponsor's visa.

These decisions do not decide any other couple's case. Each turned on its own record and its own evidence. What they show is that the work a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems does, fixing the dates, explaining the history and proving the facts behind compelling reasons, is the material the Tribunal examines when it reconsiders these issues.

How My Migration Lawyers handles partner visa matters with visa history problems

My Migration Lawyers handles partner visa matters with visa history problems by obtaining the applicant's full immigration record itself, testing that record against every validity rule, Schedule 3 criterion, public interest criterion and sponsorship rule that it engages, and advising the couple in writing on the pathway before any government charge is paid. The firm deals with complex cases as a regular part of its practice. It acts in many partner visa matters involving overstays, bridging visa histories, cancellations, earlier refusals, condition 8503 and earlier inconsistent answers to the Department, and it is capable of handling these matters from the first records request to decision and, if necessary, through ART review. Acting as a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems is a core part of the firm's partner visa work, not an occasional extra.

On a partner visa matter with a visa history problem, the work follows a set sequence.

• Records first. The firm checks VEVO using the passport details on file, obtains the Department records available to it as the appointed representative, and lodges a freedom of information request where the history is long, unclear or disputed. The client is not asked for old grant notices or old application forms.
• Chronology. The firm prepares a single written chronology of every arrival, departure, visa, application, refusal, cancellation, condition and period without a substantive visa.
• Rule-by-rule analysis. The firm marks against the chronology each rule that applies: condition 8503, section 48 and item 1124B, Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, PIC 4020 and its non-grant periods, special return criteria for an offshore pathway, and the sponsor's eligibility and sponsorship limitation.
• Written advice on the pathway. The firm advises whether a valid onshore application can be made now, whether a waiver must come first, and whether an offshore Subclass 309 or a Subclass 300 application is the better course, with the risks and evidence for each.
• Evidence plan. The firm tells the couple which independent evidence proves the facts relied on for compelling reasons, such as records about children, medical reports and evidence of the sponsor's circumstances.
• Review of the couple's own evidence. The relationship statement and Form 888 statements remain the couple's and the witnesses' own words. The firm reviews them against the record, identifies gaps and inconsistencies, and the couple correct and confirm their own accounts.
• Submissions and lodgement. The firm prepares the legal submissions on each criterion or waiver, completes the history questions from the chronology, lodges the application and responds to any section 56 request or section 57 letter.
• Review if refused. If a decision goes against the couple, the firm advises on the 28-day deadline, the AUD 3,727 ART fee and the review strategy on the day the decision arrives.

Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer, leads the firm's partner visa practice. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers and about Weiwei Zhang, and see how the firm works as partner visa lawyers. The firm also explains how to choose a partner visa lawyer in Australia, whether legal help is worth it compared with doing it yourself and the difference between a migration agent and an immigration lawyer. Couples who have already lodged can read about hiring an immigration lawyer after lodgement, getting a second opinion or changing immigration lawyer, and couples preparing for a first meeting can read about booking an immigration lawyer consultation.

Consultations are held by video, and My Migration Lawyers acts in partner visa matters with visa history problems across Australia, including for clients of our partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. For other visa matters, including cancellations and refusals outside the partner program, the firm's immigration lawyers act for clients in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. Same-sex couples can also read the firm's LGBTI partner visa page.

The firm cannot promise any outcome. What a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems at My Migration Lawyers can do is make sure the record is known before the couple act on it, that every rule the record engages is addressed with the right evidence, and that no deadline is missed.

Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your visa history reviewed by a partner visa lawyer for visa history problems before you lodge, or as soon as a problem arises. You can also call 1300 040 300.