Applying for a Partner Visa on a Bridging Visa

Applying for a partner visa on a bridging visa is possible, but the bridging visa the applicant holds today decides how the Department of Home Affairs will assess the application. A partner visa on a bridging visa is treated very differently from a partner visa lodged while a student, skilled or visitor visa is still in effect.

This guide explains, case by case, what happens when a person lodges a partner visa on a bridging visa. It covers Bridging visa A, Bridging visa B, Bridging visa C and Bridging visa E, the Schedule 3 criteria, condition 8503, the section 48 bar, reviews at the Administrative Review Tribunal, and the bridging visa held after lodging. It is written for the onshore Subclass 820 partner visa, which is applied for together with the permanent Subclass 801. The difference between the two stages is explained in the article on Subclass 820 and Subclass 801.

The central point is simple. A bridging visa keeps a person lawful. It does not count as a substantive visa. That one rule is why a partner visa on a bridging visa so often turns on Schedule 3, and why the timing of lodgement matters so much.

For the wider framework of temporary and permanent partner visas, see the complete guide to partner visas in Australia. For general background on each bridging visa class, see bridging visas in Australia: A, B, C and E explained. This article focuses on one question: how the bridging visa held at lodgement changes a partner visa application. The complete Subclass 820 partner visa guide covers the remaining requirements.

Can you apply for a partner visa on a bridging visa?

Yes. A person in Australia can apply for a partner visa on a bridging visa, and the Department will accept a valid application. The difficulty is not validity in most cases. The difficulty is that the Subclass 820 time of application criteria are harder to meet for a person who holds only a bridging visa.

Clause 820.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 sets out the criteria an applicant must meet at the time of application. Paragraph 820.211(2)(d) deals with an applicant who is not the holder of a substantive visa. Under subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii), that applicant must satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria.

A person who lodges a partner visa on a bridging visa is, by definition, not the holder of a substantive visa if the bridging visa is the only visa they hold. Subsection 76(2) of the Migration Act 1958 confirms that holding a bridging visa is not to be taken to be holding a visa for the purposes of an application for a visa of another class.

So the answer has two parts. A partner visa on a bridging visa can be lodged. Whether it can be granted depends on Schedule 3, and often on the compelling reasons waiver.

There are two important exceptions to keep in mind.

• The substantive visa may still be in effect. Many people say they are "on a bridging visa" when they have only been granted one. A Bridging visa A granted with a new application often does not come into effect until the current substantive visa ends. If the substantive visa is still in effect on the day of lodgement, Schedule 3 does not apply.
• Some barriers stop the application being valid at all. Condition 8503 on the last substantive visa, or other application bars, can prevent a valid partner visa application from being made. These are covered below.

The firm's page on Schedule 3 waivers for partner visas explains the waiver itself. This article explains how each bridging visa leads into it. Readers wondering whether their situation needs legal help can read about when an immigration lawyer is needed for a partner visa.

Why a bridging visa is not a substantive visa

A substantive visa is defined in subsection 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 as a visa other than a bridging visa, a criminal justice visa or an enforcement visa. Student, visitor, skilled, graduate, working holiday and partner visas are substantive visas. Bridging visas are not.

This is the legal reason a partner visa on a bridging visa is assessed differently. The Subclass 820 criteria ask whether the applicant holds a substantive visa at the time of application. If the answer is no, the extra Schedule 3 criteria are engaged.

The Department's own policy guidance on Schedule 3 describes its target group as applicants who are in Australia and who, at the time of application, are unlawful non-citizens or hold only a bridging visa. That is the precise position of most people who lodge a partner visa on a bridging visa.

The purpose of Schedule 3, according to the same guidance, is to encourage non-citizens to apply for further stay while they still hold a substantive visa. A person who waits until their student or visitor visa has ended, and then applies for a partner visa on a bridging visa, is exactly the person Schedule 3 was designed to examine.

It does not matter that the bridging visa kept the person lawful. A person can be fully lawful on a Bridging visa A for years and still fail criterion 3001 when they later lodge a partner visa on a bridging visa. Lawful status and substantive visa status are two different questions.

Applicants who have already been unlawful for a period should also read the firm's article on Schedule 3 criteria when you are unlawful. The same criteria apply to unlawful applicants and to bridging visa holders.

What Schedule 3 requires for a partner visa on a bridging visa

For a partner visa on a bridging visa, the relevant Schedule 3 criteria are 3001, 3003 and 3004. All three must be satisfied, unless the compelling reasons waiver in subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) is exercised.

Criterion 3001: the 28-day rule

Criterion 3001 requires the visa application to be made within 28 days after the relevant day. For people whose substantive visa ended on or after 1 September 1994, the relevant day is the later of the last day they held a substantive visa and the day they last entered Australia unlawfully.

The Department's guidance confirms that the first of the 28 days is the day after the last day the substantive visa was held. If the 28th day falls on a weekend or a public holiday in any place in Australia where the application could have been made, the period extends to the next working day.

In practice, criterion 3001 is the criterion most people fail when they lodge a partner visa on a bridging visa. A person whose student visa ended two years ago, and who has held a Bridging visa A ever since because of a refused application and review, is far outside the 28-day period. The fact that they held a bridging visa during that time does not restart the clock.

Criterion 3001 does not make the application invalid. The Department's guidance states that if the criterion is not met, the Schedule 2 criteria cannot be satisfied and the visa cannot be granted. The partner visa on a bridging visa remains a valid application, but it will be refused unless the compelling reasons waiver applies.

Criteria 3003 and 3004

Criteria 3003 and 3004 are parallel tests. Criterion 3003 is aimed at people who ceased to hold a substantive visa. Criterion 3004 is aimed at people who entered Australia unlawfully. Each contains six requirements, and all six must be met.

The decision maker must be satisfied that:

• the applicant became a person without a substantive visa, or an unlawful entrant, because of factors beyond their control;
• there are compelling reasons for granting the visa;
• the applicant substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa and any later bridging visa;
• the applicant would have been entitled to the visa if they had applied immediately before they ceased to hold a substantive visa;
• the applicant intends to comply with the conditions of the visa if granted; and
• an old pre-1994 "no further stay" condition did not apply to the last entry permit.

The "beyond their control" element has two parts. There must be factors that caused the person to be without a substantive visa, and those factors must have been external to the person. A serious accident or illness that prevented an application may meet that test. A choice to let a visa expire usually will not.

The compliance element matters a great deal for a partner visa on a bridging visa. It reaches back to the bridging visa conditions too. A person who worked in breach of a no-work condition on a bridging visa, or breached study conditions on their last student visa, can have difficulty with this requirement.

The compelling reasons waiver in clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii)

Because criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 are hard to meet, most applications for a partner visa on a bridging visa depend on the waiver. Subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) allows the Minister, and the Tribunal on review, to decide not to apply those criteria if there are compelling reasons for not applying them.

This is a different question from the "compelling reasons for granting the visa" element inside 3003 and 3004. The waiver asks whether there are compelling reasons not to apply the Schedule 3 criteria at all. The firm's article on the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver explains the waiver in depth, and later sections of this article show how it is assessed for each bridging visa.

Check which visa is in effect before lodging

Before anyone lodges a partner visa on a bridging visa, the first task is to confirm which visa is actually in effect on the day of lodgement. It is often not the visa the person thinks.

A bridging visa can be held without being in effect. The Department's bridging visa guidance explains that a Bridging visa A granted with a new substantive visa application does not come into effect until the substantive visa the person already holds ceases. Until then, the person still holds a substantive visa.

That has a direct effect on Schedule 3. Consider two people who each say they hold a Bridging visa A.

• Person one applied for a new student visa while their current student visa still had three months to run. They hold a Bridging visa A, but it is not yet in effect. Their student visa is still their substantive visa. If they lodge a partner visa now, they are not lodging a partner visa on a bridging visa in the Schedule 3 sense. They hold a substantive visa at the time of application.
• Person two applied for a skilled visa a year ago. Their previous visa has ended and their Bridging visa A is now in effect. If they lodge now, they are lodging a partner visa on a bridging visa, and Schedule 3 applies.

The difference between these two people can be a matter of weeks. That is why the date of lodgement should be chosen with the visa grant notices and the Department's records at hand. Lodging one day too late can turn a straightforward application into a partner visa on a bridging visa that needs a waiver.

The firm checks visa status directly through the Department's records before any lodgement. For applicants who have not yet set up online access, the guide on how to create an ImmiAccount explains the steps. Applicants comparing their options can also read the Subclass 820 visa guide and the guide to 820 requirements, documents and how to apply.

Bridging visa A and a pending student or skilled application

Bridging visa A is the most common starting point for a partner visa on a bridging visa. Clause 010.211(2) provides for a Bridging visa A where a person has made a valid application in Australia for a substantive visa, that application has not been finally determined, and the person held a substantive visa when they made it.

People typically hold a Bridging visa A because they applied for a further student visa, a graduate visa, a skilled visa or an employer sponsored visa while their previous visa was still in effect. They then form or formalise a relationship with an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, and want to apply for a partner visa.

When the substantive visa is still in effect

If the earlier substantive visa has not yet ended, the Bridging visa A is held but not in effect. The person still holds a substantive visa. A partner visa lodged at this point is assessed as an application by a substantive visa holder, and the Schedule 3 criteria in paragraph 820.211(2)(d) do not apply.

This is the safest time to apply. For many people considering a partner visa on a bridging visa, the most valuable advice is to lodge before the substantive visa ends, not after. Once the relationship evidence is ready, waiting can only create risk.

When the Bridging visa A is in effect

If the earlier substantive visa has ended and the Bridging visa A is in effect, a partner visa lodged now is a partner visa on a bridging visa. The applicant holds no substantive visa, so subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) applies.

The 28-day period in criterion 3001 runs from the day after the last substantive visa ended, not from the date the Bridging visa A came into effect. A person who has held a Bridging visa A for several months will usually be outside the period, and will need the waiver.

When considering the waiver, the decision maker will look at why the person is on a bridging visa. Holding a Bridging visa A because of a genuine pending application is very different from being unlawful. The Department's policy lists matters such as the history of compliance with visa conditions, the reasons the person became a non-substantive visa holder and the steps they took to remain lawful. A lawful history on a Bridging visa A can therefore be relevant evidence for a partner visa on a bridging visa.

The firm's articles on Bridging visa A work rights, conditions and travel and working while waiting for a Subclass 820 visa explain the bridging visa itself. This section is about the partner visa on a bridging visa decision that follows.

Applying for a partner visa on a bridging visa during an ART review

A common situation is a person whose student, skilled or visitor visa application was refused, who then applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review. The Bridging visa A granted with the original application continues while the review is on foot, and ends a short period after the Tribunal makes its decision.

During the review, that person holds a Bridging visa A and no substantive visa. If they lodge a partner visa during the review, they are lodging a partner visa on a bridging visa. Schedule 3 applies, and they will usually be outside the 28-day period.

Lodging a partner visa on a bridging visa during an ART review has several consequences.

• The review continues. The partner visa application is a separate application. It does not end the review, and the review does not decide the partner visa.
• Section 48 may already apply. A refusal in Australia while the person did not hold a substantive visa can trigger the section 48 bar. The Subclass 820 is one of the visas that can still be applied for, but additional validity requirements apply. This is explained below.
• The bridging visas stack. The person will hold the original Bridging visa A and a new bridging visa from the partner application. Which one is in effect depends on the most beneficial bridging visa rules, also explained below.
• Timing of the waiver evidence. The Department, and the Tribunal on any later review, considers all circumstances up to the time of decision. Evidence should be kept up to date throughout.

A partner visa on a bridging visa lodged during an ART review must also be consistent with what was said in the review. A visitor visa review, for example, may have involved statements about the purpose of the visit. The firm's articles on what to expect at an ART review and moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa explain how earlier statements can be revisited.

Anyone whose visa has been refused should get advice immediately, because review deadlines are short and strictly applied. The article on urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to prepare. The firm's article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal covers the broader options, and the visa refusals page explains how refusal matters are handled.

Bridging visa B and a partner visa on a bridging visa

A Bridging visa B is a travel bridging visa. It is granted to a person who holds a Bridging visa A or Bridging visa B and needs to leave Australia and return while their application is decided. It allows the holder to leave and re-enter Australia during the travel period stated in the grant.

Holding a Bridging visa B does not change the substantive visa question. A Bridging visa B is still a bridging visa. A person who lodges a partner visa on a bridging visa while their Bridging visa B is in effect is in the same Schedule 3 position as a Bridging visa A holder.

There are two specific points about Bridging visa B for a partner visa on a bridging visa.

• Section 48 follows the person. Subsection 48(3) of the Migration Act provides that a person who leaves and re-enters Australia on a bridging visa is taken to have been continuously in Australia. A person affected by section 48 does not escape it by travelling on a Bridging visa B.
• The travel period is strict. If the holder is outside Australia when the travel period ends, they cannot return on that Bridging visa B. A Subclass 820 visa must be granted while the applicant is in Australia and not in immigration clearance, under clause 820.411. Travel planning matters.

After a Subclass 820 application is lodged, a Bridging visa B can be sought for travel during processing. The firm's article on Bridging visa B applications and travel explains how it works.

Bridging visa C and a partner visa on a bridging visa

A Bridging visa C is granted to a person who did not hold a substantive visa when they made their substantive visa application. Under clause 030.212(2), the person must not hold a substantive visa, must have made a valid application in Australia for a substantive visa that can be granted in Australia, and that application must not be finally determined.

A Bridging visa C is not available to a person who holds a Bridging visa E, or who has held a Bridging visa E since they last held a substantive visa. This is a requirement of clause 030.211 and item 1303 of Schedule 1.

People hold a Bridging visa C before their partner visa for several reasons. Some applied for a further student or skilled visa after their previous visa had already ended. Some lodged an earlier partner visa on a bridging visa that is still being processed. Some applied for another visa after a Bridging visa A ceased.

A Bridging visa C holder who lodges a partner visa on a bridging visa is in the clearest Schedule 3 position of all. They held no substantive visa when they made their earlier application, and they hold none now. The 28-day period has almost always passed. The waiver is the only path.

A Bridging visa C holder must also be careful about travel. A Bridging visa C does not allow the holder to leave and return to Australia. If the holder leaves, the Bridging visa C ceases. Leaving Australia while a partner visa on a bridging visa is pending can also put the Subclass 820 grant at risk, because the visa must be granted while the applicant is in Australia.

Bridging visa E and a partner visa on a bridging visa

A Bridging visa E is generally granted to people who are unlawful, or who are about to become unlawful, so that they can make arrangements to leave Australia, deal with a pending matter, or remain while certain applications are decided. It is the bridging visa most often associated with compliance action.

A person who holds a Bridging visa E and lodges a partner visa on a bridging visa faces the most difficult Schedule 3 assessment. They will usually have been unlawful at some point after their last substantive visa ended. Criterion 3001 will not be met, and the decision maker will look closely at the waiver.

There are three practical points for a Bridging visa E holder.

• No Bridging visa C. Because the person holds, or has held, a Bridging visa E since their last substantive visa, they cannot be granted a Bridging visa C with the partner application. A further Bridging visa E is usually sought instead, under clause 050.212(3), on the basis of the valid partner visa application.
• Conditions carry forward. A further Bridging visa E is often granted with condition 8101, which prohibits work, unless the person can show a compelling need to work. Departure-related conditions on an earlier Bridging visa E must still be complied with until a new bridging visa is granted.
• Compliance history is examined. The Department's policy lists the length of time a person has been unlawful, the reasons they became unlawful and the reasons they did not seek to become lawful sooner as matters relevant to the waiver.

A Bridging visa E holder should not assume that lodging a partner visa on a bridging visa resolves their position. It may protect their lawful status while the application is assessed, but the waiver still has to be justified on the evidence. The relationship must also be shown to be genuine, as explained in the guide on preparing evidence of a genuine relationship.

Condition 8503 and the last substantive visa

Condition 8503 provides that the holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia. It is often called the "no further stay" condition. Conditions 8534 and 8535 on some student visas work in a similar way.

For a partner visa on a bridging visa, the key point is that the condition outlives the visa it was attached to. The Department's guidance on "no further application" conditions confirms that the condition continues to be in force even after the visa to which it was attached has ceased. Under subsection 46(1A) of the Migration Act, a person who has held a visa with that condition at any time since last entering Australia generally cannot make a valid application for another substantive visa while in Australia, unless the condition has been waived.

This catches many people. A visitor visa with condition 8503 may have ended long ago. The person may now hold a Bridging visa A or Bridging visa C from a later application. But if they have not left Australia since that visitor visa, the 8503 condition may still prevent a valid partner visa on a bridging visa application.

Several further points follow.

• The waiver must come first. A waiver request is made under regulation 2.05. The Department's guidance states that where a visa application is submitted together with a waiver request, the date of application is the date the condition is waived.
• A waiver is not eligibility. Waiving condition 8503 only allows a valid application to be made. The partner visa on a bridging visa still has to meet Schedule 3 and every other criterion.
• A waiver does not lift section 48. The guidance confirms that waiver of a "no further application" condition does not affect other application bars, including section 48.
• A refused waiver is generally not reviewable. A decision not to waive is not merits reviewable at the Tribunal.

The firm's article on applying for a Subclass 820 visa with condition 8503 explains the waiver test in detail. Once a partner visa is lodged, any later change in visa status or circumstances should be notified, as explained in the article on Form 1022 change of circumstances.

The section 48 bar after a refusal in Australia

Section 48 of the Migration Act limits the visas a person can apply for if they are in Australia, do not hold a substantive visa, and have had a visa refused or cancelled since they last entered Australia. The visas they can still apply for are prescribed in regulation 2.12.

Many people who want to lodge a partner visa on a bridging visa are affected by section 48. A typical example is a person whose student visa application was refused while they were on a Bridging visa A, and who then sought review. They hold no substantive visa, and they have had a visa refused since last entering.

The Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 are visas that a section 48 affected person can still apply for. The Department's Subclass 820 policy confirms this by reference to section 48 and regulation 2.12. However, paragraph 1124B(3)(e) of Schedule 1 imposes additional validity requirements on a section 48 affected applicant. These include lodging the sponsorship form, completed and signed by the sponsoring partner, at the same time as the application, and providing two supporting declarations from Australian citizens, permanent residents or eligible New Zealand citizens confirming the relationship.

If those requirements are not met at the time of lodgement, the partner visa on a bridging visa may be invalid. An invalid application gives no new bridging visa. For a person whose existing Bridging visa A is about to cease after an ART decision, an invalid application can leave them unlawful.

Section 48 and Schedule 3 are separate. A section 48 affected person who makes a valid partner visa on a bridging visa application must still meet Schedule 3, or obtain the waiver. Meeting the extra validity requirements only gets the application through the door.

Anyone who has received a refusal should also read the firm's articles on partner visa refusal appeal options and the most common reasons Subclass 820 visas are refused. The visa cancellations page covers the position where a visa was cancelled rather than refused, and the article on why partner visas get refused sets out the wider refusal grounds.

Which bridging visa is held after lodging a partner visa on a bridging visa

A valid Subclass 820 application made in Australia is usually also an application for a bridging visa. Which bridging visa depends on the visa held at the time of lodgement.

• If a substantive visa is held at lodgement, the partner application is usually also an application for a Bridging visa A.
• If only a Bridging visa A, B or C is held, or the person is unlawful, the partner application is usually also an application for a Bridging visa C, provided the person does not hold and has not held a Bridging visa E since their last substantive visa.
• If the person holds or has held a Bridging visa E since their last substantive visa, a further Bridging visa E is usually sought.

This means a person who lodges a partner visa on a bridging visa often ends up holding two bridging visas. For example, a person on a Bridging visa A from a student visa review who lodges a partner visa will usually be granted a Bridging visa C as well.

Only one bridging visa is in effect

When a person holds more than one bridging visa, only one is in effect at any time. Subsection 68(4) of the Migration Act and regulation 2.21 decide which one. The Department's guidance sets out the order from most beneficial to least beneficial: Bridging visa B, then Bridging visa A, then Bridging visa C, then Bridging visa D, then Bridging visa R, then Bridging visa E, then Bridging visa F. Within each class, a visa with unlimited work rights is more beneficial than one with limited or no work rights.

In the example above, the Bridging visa A stays in effect because it is more beneficial than the Bridging visa C. The Department's own Bridging visa A guidance uses almost this exact example. When the Bridging visa A later ceases, for example a short period after the Tribunal decides the student visa review, the Bridging visa C comes into effect and keeps the person lawful while the partner visa on a bridging visa is decided.

Why this matters

The visa in effect decides the person's work rights, their ability to travel and the conditions they must comply with. It also decides what happens if one application ends. A person who understands which visa is in effect can plan around the change. A person who does not can breach a condition without realising it.

Compliance with bridging visa conditions is also part of the Schedule 3 assessment. Criteria 3003 and 3004 ask whether the applicant has substantially complied with the conditions of their last visa, including any later bridging visa. Breaching a condition on the bridging visa in effect after lodging a partner visa on a bridging visa can weaken the waiver case.

Work rights and travel on a partner visa on a bridging visa

Work rights after lodging a partner visa on a bridging visa depend on the bridging visa in effect and the conditions attached to it.

For applicants who are eligible for a Bridging visa A or Bridging visa B with their Subclass 820 application, a legislative instrument made under paragraphs 010.611(1)(c) and 020.611(1)(b) allows that bridging visa to be granted with nil conditions. The Department's Subclass 820 policy confirms this. In practice, that means applicants who held a substantive visa when they lodged usually receive a bridging visa without work restrictions.

The position is different for a partner visa on a bridging visa where the person held no substantive visa at lodgement.

• Bridging visa C. A Bridging visa C may be granted with condition 8101, which prohibits work. Under clause 030.212(3), the holder can apply for a further Bridging visa C without that condition if they can show a compelling need to work, a term defined in regulation 1.08.
• Bridging visa E. A further Bridging visa E is often granted with condition 8101. A further Bridging visa E without the condition may be available on similar grounds.
• Earlier Bridging visa A in effect. If an earlier Bridging visa A remains in effect, its conditions apply until it ceases, even though the partner application has been lodged.

Travel is also restricted. Only a Bridging visa B allows a holder to leave and return to Australia. A Bridging visa A, Bridging visa C or Bridging visa E holder who leaves Australia will generally lose that bridging visa. Because the Subclass 820 must be granted while the applicant is in Australia, travel during a partner visa on a bridging visa application should never be booked without advice.

Applicants who want to understand processing should read the guides on how long a Subclass 820 visa takes and the 820 onshore partner visa timeline.

How the compelling reasons test works for a partner visa on a bridging visa

The compelling reasons test in subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) is the heart of most applications for a partner visa on a bridging visa. The Regulations do not list what counts as compelling. The Department's policy says delegates must consider each case on its circumstances.

The Full Federal Court in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32 held that the decision maker must consider all of the applicant's circumstances, to the extent they are known up to the time of decision, and decide whether any one or more of them provide compelling reasons not to apply the Schedule 3 criteria. The assessment is not frozen at the date of lodgement.

What the Department's policy says

The Department's Subclass 820 policy states that, as a general rule, a genuine relationship and the hardship of separation are not compelling reasons on their own, because every partner visa is based on a genuine relationship. The policy also states that where there is an Australian citizen child with a demonstrable link to the applicant, a decision may be made to waive Schedule 3 in the best interests of the child.

The matters the policy lists include:

• any history of non-compliance with visa conditions;
• the length of time the applicant has been an unlawful non-citizen;
• the reasons the applicant became an unlawful non-citizen;
• the reasons the applicant did not seek to become lawful sooner;
• current family composition, including any dependent children; and
• the steps the applicant has taken to become lawful, other than applying for the partner visa.

For a partner visa on a bridging visa, these matters often favour an applicant who has stayed lawful throughout. A person who has held a Bridging visa A or Bridging visa C continuously, complied with every condition and pursued genuine applications is in a very different position from a person who was unlawful for years. The waiver submission should say so clearly, with evidence.

The policy also states that the waiver is not meant to give an unfair advantage to people who could leave Australia and apply offshore. Where an applicant says they cannot reasonably leave, the reasons must be supported by evidence, such as medical evidence about the sponsor, evidence about children's schooling and care, or evidence of the consequences of departure.

What Tribunal decisions show

Several partner visa decisions remitted by the Tribunal have involved a bridging visa history. Remittal means the Tribunal sent the application back to the Department for reconsideration. It is not a grant of the visa.

• Yuan (Migration) [2024] AATA 3638, a Subclass 820 matter, where the reported issues were that the application was made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held, that a bridging visa was later granted in association with another review application, and cumulative factors.
• 1814075 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3700, a Subclass 820 matter, where the reported issues were that the application was 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.
• Bamba (Migration) [2020] AATA 1868, a Subclass 820 matter, where the reported issues were that the applicant was on a bridging visa after lengthy unlawful residence, the application was lodged more than 28 days after the applicant last held a substantive visa, and waiver of the criterion.

These decisions show that the Tribunal looks at the whole history, including bridging visa periods, and considers circumstances cumulatively. They do not show that any particular fact will lead to a waiver.

Common mistakes with a partner visa on a bridging visa

Most problems with a partner visa on a bridging visa come from timing and assumptions, not from the relationship itself.

• Assuming the bridging visa is "a visa" for Schedule 3. Lawful status on a bridging visa does not satisfy paragraph 820.211(2)(d).
• Waiting until the substantive visa ends. Lodging a few weeks earlier, while the substantive visa is still in effect, can remove Schedule 3 entirely.
• Missing condition 8503. A "no further stay" condition on a visa held since last entering Australia can make the application invalid.
• Ignoring section 48. A section 48 affected person who omits the sponsorship form or the supporting declarations at lodgement may make an invalid application.
• Leaving Australia on the wrong bridging visa. Travel on a Bridging visa A, C or E usually ends that visa.
• Breaching bridging visa conditions. Working in breach of condition 8101 can undermine the compliance element of the Schedule 3 assessment.
• Lodging without waiver evidence. A partner visa on a bridging visa should include a full waiver submission with evidence from the start.

The relationship evidence must still be strong. The firm's guides on how to prove your relationship is genuine, writing the relationship statement, Form 888 supporting statements and the partner visa document checklist explain what is needed.

Steps to take before lodging a partner visa on a bridging visa

A partner visa on a bridging visa should be prepared in a set order, because some steps affect whether the application is valid at all.

• Confirm visa status. Identify every visa held since last entering Australia, the date the last substantive visa ended, and which bridging visa is in effect today.
• Check for "no further stay" conditions. Review every visa held since last entry for conditions 8503, 8534 or 8535, and seek a waiver first if needed.
• Check section 48. Identify any refusal or cancellation since last entry, and prepare the additional validity documents if section 48 applies.
• Assess Schedule 3. Work out whether criterion 3001 can be met and, if not, what the compelling reasons are.
• Gather waiver evidence. Collect evidence of compliance history, the reasons the substantive visa ended, family circumstances and any Australian citizen child.
• Prepare relationship evidence. Prepare the relationship statement, Form 888 supporting statements and joint evidence across the four aspects of the relationship.
• Plan the bridging visa outcome. Identify which bridging visa will be in effect after lodgement, its conditions and any work or travel limits.

The 820 partner visa evidence checklist, the guide on Form 888 example answers and the article on Form 80 personal particulars are useful at stage six. If the sponsor has sponsored before, read about partner visa sponsorship limitations.

If a partner visa on a bridging visa is refused

If a partner visa on a bridging visa is refused because Schedule 3 was not met, review may be available at the Administrative Review Tribunal. The Tribunal can consider the waiver afresh, on all the circumstances up to the time of its decision.

Review deadlines are short and strictly applied. Anyone who receives a refusal should get advice on the day it arrives. The firm's articles on when you need a visa appeal lawyer, responding to a natural justice letter and responding to a section 56 request explain the steps before and after a decision. The partner visa refusals page explains how the firm handles refused partner visas.

Where the relationship ends during processing, or family violence is involved, different provisions may apply. See the article on relationship breakdown during a Subclass 820 application and the family violence provisions for partner visas.

If an application was prepared elsewhere and is already lodged, a second opinion from an immigration lawyer can identify Schedule 3 gaps before a decision. The article on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application explains how to change representation.

How My Migration Lawyers handles a partner visa on a bridging visa

My Migration Lawyers acts in many matters where a client needs to lodge a partner visa on a bridging visa, including complex cases involving Bridging visa E holders, section 48 affected applicants, people with condition 8503 on an earlier visa, and applicants who lodged during an ART review. The firm is capable of handling these matters from the first status check through to any review.

The work on a partner visa on a bridging visa follows a set process.

• Status check from the Department's records. The firm checks the client's visa history directly, identifies the last substantive visa, the date it ended, every condition attached since last entry and which bridging visa is in effect today.
• Validity first. The firm identifies any condition 8503, 8534 or 8535 and prepares the waiver request where needed. Where section 48 applies, it prepares the sponsorship and supporting declarations required for a valid application.
• Timing advice. Where a substantive visa is still in effect, the firm advises whether to lodge before it ends so that Schedule 3 does not apply.
• Schedule 3 and waiver submissions. The firm prepares legal submissions on criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 and on the compelling reasons waiver in subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii), and presents the client's own account and evidence in the form the law requires.
• Bridging visa planning. The firm explains which bridging visa will be in effect after lodgement, its work and travel conditions, and when a Bridging visa B or a further bridging visa without condition 8101 should be sought.
• Relationship evidence review. The relationship statement is the client's own evidence, reviewed and corrected by the client. The firm checks it against the visa history so that dates and addresses are consistent.

The firm acts for couples across Australia, and consultations are held by video. Clients come through its pages for partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Parramatta, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and the Gold Coast. Couples choosing representation can read about choosing a partner visa lawyer in Australia, in Sydney, in Melbourne and in Brisbane, and the comparison of a partner visa lawyer and doing it yourself. Same-sex couples can also read the LGBTI partner visa page.

The firm's partner visa practice is overseen by its Principal Lawyer, Weiwei Zhang. More about the firm's work is on the partner visa lawyers page and the about page.

If you are considering a partner visa on a bridging visa, or you have already lodged and want your Schedule 3 position checked, book a consultation or call 1300 040 300.