Partner Visa Non-Genuine Relationship Refusal

What does "partner visa refused not genuine" mean?

A partner visa refused not genuine decision is a refusal in which the Department of Home Affairs was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor are in a genuine partner relationship as Australian migration law defines it. People search for "partner visa refused not genuine" when the refusal letter says the delegate was not satisfied that the relationship is genuine and continuing, or that the couple has a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others. The finding is about the evidence the delegate had, not a judgement on the couple's feelings for each other.

A partner visa refused not genuine finding is one of the most common reasons partner applications fail, and it is also one of the most answerable. That is because the legal test is evidence based. The delegate looked at the material in the file and reached a view. If the material was thin, inconsistent or misunderstood, the relationship can often be shown again, properly, at the review stage. This article explains the legal test, the findings delegates usually make, the evidence that answers each one, how the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) reassesses the relationship, and when a fresh application may be the better option.

This article is deliberately narrow. For the full list of refusal grounds, read why partner visas get refused. For the review process in general, read our guide to partner visa refused appeal options. This article stays on one task: answering the findings in a partner visa refused not genuine decision. If you need advice on your own file now, our partner visa refusal lawyers page explains how My Migration Lawyers approaches these matters.

Who this article is for

This article is for applicants and sponsors who have received a partner visa refused not genuine decision and are still within the time to seek review. It applies to onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 applications, offshore Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 applications, and, with some differences, to the Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa. It also applies to same-sex couples, who are assessed under exactly the same definitions. Our page on the LGBTI partner visa explains the points that are specific to those relationships.

The legal test behind a partner visa refused not genuine decision

The legal test is set by the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994, and the delegate must apply it as written. A partner visa refused not genuine decision means the delegate concluded that one or more parts of that test were not met. Understanding which part failed is the first step in answering it.

For married couples, section 5F of the Migration Act defines a spouse. Under subsection 5F(2), the couple must be married to each other under a marriage recognised as valid under the Act. They must have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others. The relationship must be genuine and continuing. They must live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

For de facto couples, section 5CB defines a de facto partner. Under subsection 5CB(2), the couple must not be married to each other. They must have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others. The relationship must be genuine and continuing. They must live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. They must not be related by family. Regulation 2.03A then adds further requirements for de facto partners, including a minimum relationship period in most cases. Our article on the de facto partner visa and the 12-month rule explains that requirement and its exceptions.

The four matters the delegate must consider

Regulation 1.15A (married couples) and regulation 1.09A (de facto couples) tell the decision maker how to assess these definitions for a Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309 or Subclass 100 application. The decision maker must consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including four matters:

• the financial aspects of the relationship;
• the nature of the household;
• the social aspects of the relationship; and
• the nature of the persons' commitment to each other.

Department policy is clear that these four matters are circumstances to be considered, not separate criteria that must each be passed. Policy also states that the assessment must not be made by counting how many of the four matters are satisfied and how many are not. The delegate must weigh the whole relationship and decide, on balance, whether the definition is met. A relationship may also show other characteristics that are not listed at all.

This matters in a partner visa refused not genuine case. A refusal that treats a weak area, such as the absence of a joint bank account, as decisive in itself may not reflect the way the test is meant to work. Department policy also states that a refusal on the basis that there is no spousal relationship must address all four matters. A decision that skips one of them, or deals with it in a sentence, deserves close reading.

Genuine and continuing

A relationship is "genuine" when it is real, and not entered into or maintained for a migration outcome. It is "continuing" when it still exists and is expected to go on. Most partner visa refused not genuine findings rest on this element, often combined with the commitment element. Delegates tend to infer a lack of genuineness from indirect signs, such as inconsistent answers, little shared life on paper or the timing of the application against a visa expiry.

Mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others

This element looks at whether both people are committed to each other, and whether the relationship is exclusive. "Mutual" means the commitment runs both ways. Policy says mutuality may be assessed by looking at each partner's knowledge of the other's personal circumstances, background and family, and at the extent to which they have combined their affairs and provided for each other. "To the exclusion of all others" means there can be only one ongoing partner relationship. A concurrent relationship, including a concurrent polygamous marriage, prevents this element being met.

Living together or not living separately and apart permanently

Couples do not have to live under the same roof every day. Department policy accepts that separation for work, study, family duties or visa reasons can be temporary. However, the couple must show that any separation is temporary, and that they intend to live together. Policy states that a married couple cannot meet this element if they have never lived together and cannot show an intention to live together in the future. The onus is on the applicant to show the separation is temporary.

When the relationship is assessed

The relationship is assessed at more than one point in time, and a partner visa refused not genuine decision may turn on any of them. For a Subclass 820 visa, clause 820.211 requires the applicant to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor at the time of application. Clause 820.221 then requires the applicant to continue to meet that requirement at the time of decision, unless a special provision applies. The offshore Subclass 309 has a similar structure.

At the permanent stage, Department policy describes the Subclass 801 genuineness assessment as a fresh assessment, based on the evidence before the delegate at the time of decision. The delegate may interview both partners or ask for further documents. In most cases, the Subclass 801 cannot be granted until at least two years after the combined application was made, unless an exception applies. Our guide to Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 explains the two stages.

For a Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa, the question is slightly different. Clause 300.216 requires the delegate to be satisfied that the parties genuinely intend to live together as spouses. A partner visa refused not genuine decision on a Subclass 300 therefore often focuses on intention, the history of the couple's meetings and plans for the wedding.

Understanding the time point matters. If the finding in a partner visa refused not genuine decision is that the relationship was not genuine at the time of application, later evidence of a strong relationship helps, but the case must also explain the relationship as it stood on the application date. If the finding is that the relationship is no longer continuing, the answer looks forward rather than back.

How to read the reasons in a partner visa refused not genuine decision

The reasons for decision are the map for any response. Every partner visa refused not genuine decision should be read line by line, and each adverse finding should be listed separately. Most partner visa refused not genuine decisions include a section on each of the four matters, a summary of the evidence considered and a conclusion. The task is to identify exactly what the delegate found, on what evidence, and what the delegate said was missing.

A useful method is to sort each finding into one of three types. The first is an insufficiency finding: the delegate accepted what was said but found there was not enough evidence. The second is an inconsistency finding: the delegate found that the partners, the forms or the documents disagreed. The third is a credibility finding: the delegate did not believe part of the account. Each type needs a different answer. An insufficiency finding is answered mainly with more and better evidence. An inconsistency finding needs an explanation and corroboration. A credibility finding needs the most careful work, because it affects how every other piece of evidence is read.

Next, check what was put to the applicant before the decision. If the delegate relied on adverse information, such as interview answers, a previous application or a third party allegation, the Department may have been required to invite comment first under section 57 of the Migration Act. Our article on the section 57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explains that process. If the delegate asked for more information under section 56 and the response was incomplete, our article on responding to a section 56 request explains what a full response looks like.

Get the full file

The applicant should also obtain the full Department file where that is useful. Interview notes, site visit reports and records of telephone calls with the sponsor or witnesses are often summarised briefly in the decision but recorded in more detail on the file. A request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 can produce those records. The file often reveals the true source of a partner visa refused not genuine finding, such as an interview answer that was misunderstood through an interpreter, or a note that a witness could not be reached.

Finally, compare the decision with what was actually lodged. Delegates sometimes overlook documents, misread dates or attribute a statement to the wrong person. Those errors are common in large files and should be listed. They may also matter later, because a decision that ignores material evidence can raise questions beyond the merits. Our visa refusals page explains how My Migration Lawyers reviews refusal decisions across visa types.

Common partner visa refused not genuine findings and how to answer them

Most partner visa refused not genuine decisions rest on a small number of recurring findings. Each finding has a typical cause and a typical answer. The answers below are general. The right response in any matter depends on the actual reasons, the actual file and the couple's actual history, which must be presented honestly and in the couple's own words.

The starting point is always the same. Answer the finding the delegate actually made, not the finding the couple expected. A response that sends another large bundle of photographs, when the delegate's real concern was an inconsistency about the date the couple moved in together, does not answer the partner visa refused not genuine decision at all.

Limited or interrupted cohabitation

Delegates often find that the couple has lived together for only a short time, or that periods apart undermine the claim that the relationship is continuing. This finding is common where one partner works away, studied in another city, returned overseas for family reasons or could not travel because of visa or border restrictions.

The answer is to explain each period apart, the reason for it and how the relationship was maintained during it. Evidence of contact during separation matters: call logs, message history over time, money sent, visits and travel bookings. Evidence that the separation was planned as temporary also matters, such as a lease kept in both names, a return ticket or an employment contract with a fixed end date. Policy accepts that separation for work or other reasons does not necessarily mean the couple has separated. The task is to show that, during each gap, the couple still acted as a couple.

For de facto couples, interrupted cohabitation can also affect the minimum relationship period. Our article on whether you really need 12 months of de facto relationship for a Subclass 820 explains how that period is measured.

Inconsistent accounts between the partners

Inconsistencies are among the most damaging findings in a partner visa refused not genuine decision. They usually arise from separate interviews, where the applicant and the sponsor gave different answers about how they met, when they moved in, who pays which bills, or details of each other's families. They also arise when the forms, the relationship statement and the Form 888 supporting statements give different dates or details.

Inconsistencies must be explained, not ignored. Some are simple errors, such as a wrong month in a form completed under pressure. Some come from interpreting problems or misunderstood questions. Some reflect genuine differences in how two people remember events. The response should identify each inconsistency, explain it truthfully and, where possible, point to independent documents that show the correct position. Where an earlier form was wrong, the correct details should be given and the error acknowledged. Our Form 80 guide explains why accurate personal particulars matter across every form.

Two warnings apply. First, the partners must never be coached to give identical answers. Rehearsed, word-for-word answers are easy to detect and undermine credibility. Second, if an earlier answer was false rather than mistaken, the issue may raise PIC 4020 concerns. That needs specific legal advice before anything further is lodged.

Thin financial evidence

Delegates often find little evidence of pooled finances or shared financial responsibility. Policy lists joint ownership of assets, joint liabilities, the extent of pooling of resources, any legal obligation one partner owes the other and the basis on which household expenses are shared. Policy also notes that joint bank accounts used regularly over a reasonable period carry more weight than recently opened accounts with few transactions.

The answer is not to open a joint account after the refusal and present it as long-standing. The answer is to show how money actually works in the relationship. Many couples keep separate accounts but share costs. Bank statements that show rent, bills, groceries or transfers between the partners over time can establish the financial aspects of the relationship as well as a joint account. Policy itself accepts that some couples maintain separate accounts. Evidence of one partner supporting the other, beneficiary nominations, insurance and powers of attorney can also help.

Where finances are genuinely separate for cultural, practical or historical reasons, such as a recent divorce, a past debt or a partner without a tax file number, the reason should be explained. A partner visa refused not genuine finding based on finances alone is often answerable once the real arrangement is properly documented.

Thin household evidence

The nature of the household covers living arrangements, shared care of children and sharing of housework. Policy refers to joint leases, joint rental receipts, joint utility accounts and correspondence addressed to both partners at the same address. A household finding is common in partner visa refused not genuine decisions where the couple lives with family, shares accommodation with other tenants or rents informally.

Where a joint lease is not available, other evidence can show a shared home: a letter from the landlord or head tenant, mail to both partners at the address, driver licences, enrolment records and Medicare or bank records showing the same address. Where the couple shares a house with others, evidence should show that they live as a couple within that household, share a room and divide household duties as a couple. The relationship statement should describe the household in practical detail: who cooks, who shops, who manages the bills and how weekdays and weekends work.

Weak social evidence

The social aspects of the relationship cover whether the couple presents itself to others as a couple, the opinion of friends and family, and joint social activities. Delegates often find that the Form 888 supporting statements are generic, that the witnesses do not know both partners, or that there is little evidence the relationship is known to family and the wider community.

The answer is better quality, not more volume. Strong Form 888 supporting statements come from people who know both partners as a couple, over time, in more than one setting, and who describe specific things they have seen. Our guides on Form 888 for a partner visa and Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explain what these statements should contain. Other social evidence includes declarations of the relationship to government bodies, such as Centrelink, Medicare, the Australian Taxation Office or a foreign government, invitations addressed to both partners, joint travel and joint memberships.

Policy also recognises that the laws or traditions of the applicant's home country may discourage a couple from openly admitting their relationship. That point is important for same-sex couples and for couples whose families disapprove. Where the relationship could not be disclosed to family or community, the reason should be explained, and the social evidence should come from the circles where the couple could be open.

A short relationship before applying

Delegates sometimes find that the couple met recently, married quickly or applied soon after the relationship began. A short relationship is not, by itself, a lawful basis for a partner visa refused not genuine finding. Policy states there is no specific length of time prescribed for the commitment factor, and that the length of the marriage must be weighed with every other factor. De facto couples, however, must usually meet the minimum relationship period in regulation 2.03A unless an exception applies, such as a registered relationship.

The answer is to show depth rather than length. Detailed evidence of how the relationship developed, the frequency and content of contact, meetings with each other's families, decisions taken together and plans for the future can show that a relationship is genuine even when it is recent. Evidence that has accumulated since the application was lodged also matters, because the Tribunal looks at the relationship as it stands when it makes its decision.

Visa-driven timing

A common partner visa refused not genuine finding is that the relationship began, or the application was made, at a time that suggests a migration motive. Typical examples are a marriage shortly before a student visa expired, an application lodged after a different visa was refused, or a relationship that began soon after arrival on a visitor visa. Our article on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa in Australia explains the visa conditions that often sit behind these cases.

Timing alone does not prove that a relationship is not genuine. Many genuine couples marry or apply when a visa is about to expire, because that is when they must decide where to live. The answer is to explain the timing honestly and to show that the relationship existed, and was developing, independently of the visa position. Evidence from before the visa issue arose is particularly valuable, as is evidence that the relationship continued after the application with no change in its character.

Where a previous visa was refused, the applicant may also face section 48 or Schedule 3 issues. Our article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains those requirements.

Previous relationships and earlier sponsorships

Delegates look closely at the partners' relationship histories, and many partner visa refused not genuine decisions refer to them. Findings often refer to a sponsor who has sponsored a previous partner, an applicant who previously held a partner visa through someone else, a recent divorce, or a previous relationship that overlapped with the current one. Some findings also rely on an earlier application in which the applicant claimed a different relationship.

The answer depends on what the history shows. Where a previous relationship ended before the current one began, evidence of the separation date, divorce or property settlement can resolve the concern. Where the relationships overlapped, the response must explain the circumstances truthfully and show when the earlier relationship actually ended, because the exclusivity element requires only one ongoing partner relationship. Where the sponsor has sponsored before, the application must also be checked against the sponsorship limitations. Our page on partner visa sponsorship limitations and our article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explain those rules.

Cultural and arranged marriages

Arranged marriages are valid for migration purposes if both parties gave real consent. Department policy states that the fact that a marriage was arranged by relatives, friends or a marriage broker does not, of itself, affect its recognition. However, policy also tells delegates to take particular care in assessing whether an arranged marriage meets the commitment and genuineness elements. A partner visa refused not genuine decision on an arranged marriage often reflects a delegate's view that the couple spent little time together before the wedding or knows little about each other.

The answer is to explain the cultural framework clearly and without apology, and then to show how the relationship has developed within it. Evidence of the families' involvement, the engagement and wedding, the couple's contact before and after marriage, and their life together since can show that the relationship is genuine and continuing. Where the couple lives apart because of the visa process, contact evidence and visits carry particular weight. Delegates are not entitled to expect every couple to follow a Western dating pattern, but the couple's own pattern must still be shown through evidence.

Age gap

A large age difference is not a criterion in the partner visa definitions. Delegates sometimes refer to it as part of the overall circumstances, usually alongside other concerns such as a short relationship, a language barrier or one partner's financial dependence. An age gap should not, on its own, be the reason for a partner visa refused not genuine outcome.

The answer is to address the age gap openly and then to move the focus to the evidence of the relationship itself. The relationship statement can explain how the partners met, what draws them together and how their families have responded. Evidence that the families accept the relationship, that the couple has shared plans and that the relationship has lasted through ordinary pressures is more persuasive than any argument about age.

Language barriers

Language barriers appear in many partner visa refused not genuine decisions. Delegates sometimes find that the partners do not share a fluent common language, or that one partner relied on translation apps to communicate. The concern is usually framed as doubt about how the couple could have formed a deep relationship.

The answer is to show how the couple actually communicates and how that has developed over time. Message history across the life of the relationship, evidence of language classes, and descriptions of the ways the couple communicates beyond words can all help. Where an interview was conducted without an interpreter, or with an interpreter in the wrong language or dialect, that should be raised, because it may explain apparent inconsistencies.

Couples living in different countries

Offshore Subclass 309 and Subclass 300 applications often involve couples who have spent long periods apart. A partner visa refused not genuine finding in these cases usually says that the financial, household and social aspects are limited. The answer recognises that long-distance couples cannot produce a joint lease, and instead shows the substance of the relationship through visits, continuous contact, financial support, family involvement and concrete plans to live together in Australia.

Evidence that answers a partner visa refused not genuine finding

The evidence that answers a partner visa refused not genuine finding is evidence that goes directly to the specific concern, comes from an independent source where possible, and covers the whole life of the relationship. Evidence that simply repeats what was lodged before rarely changes the outcome. Our guides to partner visa relationship evidence and preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explain the categories in detail.

Across the four assessed aspects, the following types of evidence most often answer the findings:

• Financial aspects: bank statements showing shared costs or transfers over time, joint loans or assets, beneficiary nominations, evidence of financial support during separation, and an explanation of how money is managed.
• Nature of the household: leases, landlord letters, utility accounts, mail to both partners at the same address, evidence of shared care of children and a practical description of household responsibilities.
• Social aspects: detailed Form 888 supporting statements from people who know both partners, declarations of the relationship to government and other bodies, joint invitations, travel and shared activities.
• Nature of the commitment: evidence of the relationship's history and duration, time spent living together, emotional support, knowledge of each other's lives and plans for the long term, such as wills, joint goals and decisions about children or property.

The relationship statement holds this evidence together. There is one relationship statement, and it should tell the history of the relationship in a clear sequence and explain each fact the delegate questioned. Our guide to the partner visa relationship statement explains how it should be structured. Our partner visa document checklist and the Subclass 820 evidence checklist list the documents that usually support each part of the case.

Evidence that does more harm than good

Some evidence weakens a response. Large volumes of undated photographs, screenshots without context, Form 888 supporting statements that repeat the same wording, and documents created after the refusal and presented as historical all invite doubt. Every document should be dated, explained and relevant to a finding. A smaller, organised bundle that answers each concern is more persuasive than a large, unsorted one.

Partner visa refused not genuine matters the Tribunal has remitted

Published Tribunal decisions show that the Tribunal regularly reconsiders partner relationships that the Department found not genuine, and in some matters sends the application back to the Department for reconsideration. The decisions below are drawn from published Tribunal decisions in which the reported issue concerned whether the relationship was genuine, and the application was remitted. Only the reported issues are described. Each turned on its own facts, and none indicates how any other matter will be decided.

• Wang (Migration) [2024] ARTA 822: a Subclass 820 matter in which the reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, a couple validly married two months after meeting, the four assessed aspects of the relationship and the couple's future plans.
• Koroma (Migration) [2026] ARTA 200: a Subclass 309 matter in which the reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, a valid marriage in the home country, and limited financial, household and social aspects while the couple lived in different countries.
• Phan (Migration) [2019] AATA 2921: a Subclass 309 matter in which the reported issues were that the couple did not display a high degree of knowledge in some areas of each other's lives, companionship and emotional support, and a genuine and continuing long-term relationship.
• Ho (Migration) [2023] AATA 405: a Subclass 820 matter, following a court remittal, in which the reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, financial pooling and shared accommodation with other co-tenants.
• Le (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2423: a Subclass 820 matter in which the reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, incorrect residential information in the visa application, a joint bank account and shared education expenses.
• Huynh (Migration) [2023] AATA 92: a Subclass 820 matter in which the reported issues were that the delegate was not satisfied the relationship was genuine, the sponsor's previous relationship and the genuineness of the relationship at the time of application.
• Salise (Migration) [2024] AATA 1932: a Subclass 820 matter in which the reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, the circumstances of meeting and progress of the relationship, and previous visits on tourist visas.
• Raymont (Migration) [2020] AATA 5584: a Subclass 309 matter in which the reported issues were the applicant's inaccurate knowledge of the sponsor, the couple's visits to each other's countries and their methods of communication.

These decisions do not show that review usually succeeds. They show that the same findings discussed above, such as a quick marriage, limited cohabitation, inconsistent residential details, previous relationships, tourist visa history and gaps in knowledge, are matters the Tribunal reassesses on the evidence before it. A partner visa refused not genuine decision is not the final word on the relationship if the review is properly prepared.

How the ART reassesses a partner visa refused not genuine decision

The Administrative Review Tribunal reassesses the relationship afresh. It does not simply check whether the delegate made a mistake. Department policy on merits review describes the Tribunal as standing in the shoes of the original decision maker. It reconsiders the facts, the evidence and the law, and decides the correct or preferable decision on the material before it at the time of its own decision. Unless the law provides otherwise, that includes new information that was not available to the delegate.

This is why a partner visa refused not genuine decision can often be answered at review. The Tribunal is not bound by the delegate's view of the relationship. It considers the same legal definitions in section 5F or section 5CB and the same matters in regulation 1.15A or regulation 1.09A, but it forms its own view, usually after hearing from both partners. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the relationship meets the definition, it will usually remit the application to the Department with a direction that the relevant criterion is met. The Department then completes the remaining checks, such as health, character and sponsorship.

The ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. Our guide to what to expect from an ART review after a visa refusal explains the process step by step, and our article on choosing a visa appeal lawyer explains when legal representation matters most.

Who applies for review

For an onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 refusal, the applicant applies for review. For an offshore Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 refusal where the applicant was outside Australia when the decision was made, Department policy states that the review application is made by the sponsor. Getting this wrong can make the review application invalid, so the decision letter's statement of review rights should be read carefully.

The review deadline

The time limit to apply to the Tribunal is short, runs from the date the decision is notified and is strictly applied. The Tribunal has no general power to accept a late application for review of a partner visa refusal. Anyone who has received a partner visa refused not genuine decision should note the date of notification immediately, read the review rights section of the letter and obtain advice the same week. Our article on urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to gather before that first conversation.

Bridging visa during the review

An onshore applicant who held a Bridging A or Bridging B visa because of the partner visa application will generally remain lawful while a valid review application is pending, but the position depends on the visa held and the timing of the review application. The conditions of the bridging visa, including work rights and travel, must be checked. Our guides to bridging visas in Australia, the Bridging Visa A and work rights while waiting for a Subclass 820 explain the general rules.

Preparing both partners and witnesses for the hearing

Preparation for the hearing is where most partner visa refused not genuine reviews are won or lost. The Tribunal usually invites the applicant to a hearing and often hears from the sponsor as well. It may hear from the partners separately and compare their evidence. The member will usually have read the Department's decision and the file, and will ask questions directed at the findings that led to the refusal.

Oral evidence of the applicant and the sponsor

Each partner should be ready to describe the relationship from the beginning in their own words: how they met, how the relationship developed, when and why they moved in together, how they manage money and the household, who knows about the relationship and what they plan for the future. Each partner should also be ready to explain every finding in the partner visa refused not genuine decision that concerns them, including inconsistencies.

Good preparation does not mean rehearsing scripts. It means each partner reviewing the documents, the forms and their earlier statements so that they remember accurately, understanding the questions likely to be asked, and being able to explain any earlier error honestly. A partner who says "I do not remember" where that is true is more credible than one who guesses. Where an interpreter is needed, the correct language and dialect should be requested in advance.

Witnesses

Witnesses who know both partners can give oral evidence to support the social aspects of the relationship, which is often where a partner visa refused not genuine decision is weakest. The best witnesses are those who have made Form 888 supporting statements and who can speak from personal observation. They should be told that the Tribunal may ask them questions directly, and that they must speak only to what they personally know. A witness who exaggerates, or who cannot answer basic questions about the couple, can do more harm than no witness at all.

Written submissions and the evidence bundle

Before the hearing, a written submission should address the legal test and each finding in the partner visa refused not genuine decision, with references to the evidence that answers it. The evidence bundle should be organised by the four assessed aspects and by time, so the member can follow the history of the relationship. New evidence should be provided in advance rather than at the hearing wherever possible. If the Tribunal raises adverse information that it considers may be a reason to affirm the refusal, it must generally give the applicant particulars and an opportunity to respond. That response deserves the same care as the original submission.

After the hearing

The Tribunal may decide at the hearing or reserve its decision. It may also invite further evidence or comment after the hearing. Any change in the relationship, address or circumstances during the review must be disclosed. Our article on the Form 1022 change of circumstances explains the duty to notify the Department, and the same honesty is required before the Tribunal.

When a fresh application is better than review

After a partner visa refused not genuine decision, a fresh partner visa application is sometimes a better path than review, but only after the legal restrictions have been checked. A fresh application may make sense where the relationship is genuine and continuing, the refusal turned mainly on thin evidence, and the couple now has a much stronger and longer record together. It may also make sense where the review route is not available or where the decision raises issues that are better resolved through a new application.

Several restrictions apply. A person in Australia who was refused a visa while in Australia, and who does not hold a substantive visa, is generally limited by section 48 of the Migration Act. Department policy confirms that a person affected by section 48 can still apply for a Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visa, but additional validity requirements apply. If the applicant does not hold a substantive visa when applying, the Schedule 3 criteria will usually apply as well. Our page on Schedule 3 waivers, and our articles on Schedule 3 criteria for unlawful applicants and the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver, explain those requirements.

The sponsor's eligibility must also be checked against the sponsorship limitations, and any finding that false or misleading information was given must be assessed under PIC 4020 before anything new is lodged. A fresh application lodged without solving the original problem is likely to meet the same partner visa refused not genuine finding again, with the added difficulty of a refusal history.

When the relationship has ended

Where the relationship has broken down, the definitions of spouse and de facto partner can no longer be met in the ordinary way. Special provisions may apply where family violence was committed by the sponsor, or where the sponsor has died or there is a child of the relationship. Our page on family violence and partner visas and our article on what happens if the relationship breaks down during a Subclass 820 explain those options. A relationship that has ended cannot be presented as continuing, and any review must reflect the truth.

If the Tribunal affirms the refusal

If the Tribunal affirms a partner visa refused not genuine decision, the only court remedy is judicial review, which is limited to legal error. The court does not reassess whether the relationship is genuine. Our judicial review page explains when a Tribunal decision may involve a legal error.

Common mistakes after a partner visa refused not genuine decision

Applicants and sponsors make the same mistakes again and again after a partner visa refused not genuine decision. Each of them can weaken a matter that might otherwise be answered.

• Waiting too long. The review time limit is short and strictly applied. Delay also leaves less time to gather evidence and prepare both partners.
• Answering the wrong finding. Sending more photographs does not answer an inconsistency finding. Each finding needs its own answer.
• Repeating the original bundle. The Tribunal has the file. Lodging the same documents again adds nothing unless they are explained.
• Creating evidence after the event. Documents that appear to be historical but were created after the refusal damage credibility.
• Coaching identical answers. Partners who give word-for-word identical accounts appear rehearsed. Each partner should give an honest account in their own words.
• Ignoring earlier errors. An earlier wrong date or address will be raised. It is better to explain it first, truthfully, with supporting documents.
• Lodging a fresh application without checking the restrictions. Section 48, Schedule 3, sponsorship limitations and PIC 4020 can each make a new application invalid or unsuccessful.
• Running the review alone. Many couples who prepared the original application themselves later find that the review needs a different approach. Our articles on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own visa application, getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer and partner visa lawyer vs doing it yourself explain the differences.

How My Migration Lawyers answers partner visa refused not genuine findings

My Migration Lawyers treats a partner visa refused not genuine decision as a set of specific findings to be answered one by one, not as a general verdict on the couple. The firm's first step is to confirm the date the decision was notified and the correct review pathway, so that no time is lost. The firm then reads the decision record in full, lists every adverse finding, sorts each one as an insufficiency, inconsistency or credibility finding, and compares it with what was actually lodged and, where useful, with the Department's file.

From that analysis, the firm builds the response around the couple's real history. That means taking detailed instructions from both partners separately, identifying the evidence that answers each finding across the financial aspects, the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment, and advising which witnesses can genuinely speak to the relationship. The firm presents the couple's own account and evidence in the form the law requires: a single relationship statement that explains the history and every questioned fact, properly prepared Form 888 supporting statements, an organised evidence bundle and a written submission that applies regulation 1.15A or regulation 1.09A to the evidence.

Before the hearing, the firm prepares each partner and each witness for the questions the Tribunal is likely to ask, without scripting their answers, and arranges an interpreter in the right language where needed. Where the honest assessment is that review is not the best path, the firm advises on a fresh application, Schedule 3, the sponsorship limitations, the family violence provisions or other options, and explains the risks of each. No outcome can be promised in any visa matter, and the firm does not promise one.

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex partner matters, including refusals that combine a genuineness finding with inconsistent interview evidence, a sponsor's previous sponsorships, visa-driven timing concerns, Schedule 3 or a relationship lived across two countries. The firm acts in many partner visa refused not genuine matters of this exact type and is capable of handling them from the first reading of the decision through to the Tribunal hearing. The firm's work is overseen by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers, visit our partner visa lawyers page, read when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa, see what to expect from an immigration lawyer consultation, or return to our complete partner visa guide.

My Migration Lawyers acts for couples across Australia and overseas, including through our pages for partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. Couples comparing firms can read our guides to choosing the best partner visa lawyer in Australia, and in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth.

If you have received a partner visa refused not genuine decision and you are still within time to seek review, book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers so the decision and your evidence can be reviewed without delay. You can also call My Migration Lawyers on 1300 040 300.