Partner Visa With Pending Charges

Partner visa pending charges are criminal charges that have been laid but not yet decided by a court while a partner visa is being prepared or is waiting for a decision. A partner visa pending charges situation does not automatically end the application, but it must be disclosed, it is assessed under the character requirements, and the outcome of the charges can change everything.

This guide explains how partner visa pending charges are treated in Australia. It covers what the application forms ask, the duty to tell the Department of Home Affairs about new charges after lodgement, how the character test applies while the court case is still open, how different court outcomes affect the visa, and what happens when it is the Australian sponsor who has been charged. It is written for applicants and sponsors who need to make careful decisions while two legal processes run at the same time.

The central point is simple. A criminal court decides guilt and penalty. The Department, and on review the Administrative Review Tribunal, decides whether the visa applicant meets the character requirement and whether the relationship is genuine. Decisions made in the criminal case, including how a plea is entered and what sentence is sought, can have lasting migration consequences. For an overview of the visa itself, the firm's complete guide to partner visas in Australia explains every subclass and stage.

Can you apply for a partner visa with pending charges?

Yes. A person with unresolved criminal charges can lodge a valid partner visa application, because a pending charge is not, on its own, a bar to applying for a Subclass 820, Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 visa.

The difficulty arises at the decision stage. Every partner visa requires the applicant to satisfy public interest criterion 4001, which deals with character, at the time of decision. Public interest criterion 4001 links to the character test in section 501 of the Migration Act 1958. A decision maker cannot properly decide whether the applicant passes that test while important facts about the criminal matter are still unknown. That is why partner visa pending charges usually affect the timing and the risk of a decision rather than whether the application can be lodged at all.

There are three practical consequences:

• The charges must be disclosed. The application and the character form both ask about charges that are awaiting legal action.
• The Department will want court documents. Charge sheets, the police facts, bail conditions and, later, the court outcome are all relevant.
• The outcome matters more than the charge. A charge that is withdrawn is treated very differently from a conviction with a term of imprisonment.

The character criteria apply to every partner pathway. The guide to the Subclass 820 visa explained and the page on the Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa set out the criteria that a partner visa pending charges case must still satisfy, and the 820 visa requirements and documents guide explains how they are assessed in practice.

Whether to lodge now or wait for the court outcome is a strategic question. In some partner visa pending charges cases it is better to lodge promptly, for example to protect the applicant's lawful status onshore. In others, waiting for the outcome may allow a cleaner application. The answer depends on the applicant's visa status, the nature of the charge and the likely timetable of the court case. The article on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa explains why issues of this kind usually call for advice before lodgement.

What counts as a pending charge for a partner visa?

A pending charge is any criminal charge, in Australia or in another country, that has been formally laid and has not yet been finally dealt with by a court, including charges awaiting a hearing, a plea, sentence or an appeal.

The question in the Department's character form is broad. Part K of Form 80 asks whether the applicant, or any other person included in the application, has ever "been charged with any offence that is currently awaiting legal action". The same wording appears in the character section of other Department forms. The Department's character requirements page also tells applicants to declare all criminal conduct they have been charged with that is awaiting legal action in any country.

In practice, the following situations should be treated as partner visa pending charges unless advice confirms otherwise:

• A charge or court attendance notice issued by police in any Australian State or Territory.
• A charge that has been adjourned, including where the matter is waiting for a hearing date.
• A plea of guilty that has been entered where sentence has not yet been imposed.
• A conviction or sentence that is under appeal.
• A charge laid in another country, even if the applicant has since left that country.
• A family or domestic violence related charge, which the forms ask about separately as well.

Traffic matters can also be relevant. A drink driving charge or a driving while disqualified charge is a criminal charge in most jurisdictions, even though many people do not think of it that way. A parking fine or an on the spot fine that has been paid is generally a different thing. When there is doubt, the safer course is to obtain advice and, where appropriate, disclose with an explanation.

A partner visa pending charges question also arises where the applicant knows they are under investigation but has not yet been charged. The partner visa forms ask about charges, not investigations, but conduct that is being investigated can still become relevant to the character test. The way this is handled in the application should be decided carefully and accurately. The guide to completing Form 80 without errors explains the structure of the character questions.

Do you have to declare pending charges on a partner visa application?

Yes. Charges awaiting legal action must be declared in the partner visa application and in Form 80, and the forms ask the applicant to give details and attach court documents.

Form 80 asks the applicant to give details of any "Yes" answer, "including the date of the charge, the outcome and any penalty imposed", and to attach court documents such as sentencing remarks or court transcripts. Where the matter is still open, there is no outcome yet. In a partner visa pending charges disclosure, the applicant should instead provide what currently exists:

• The charge sheet or court attendance notice.
• The police statement of facts, if it has been served.
• Any bail undertaking and bail conditions.
• The next court date and the court in which the matter is listed.
• A letter from the criminal lawyer confirming the status of the matter, where one can be obtained.
• A short, accurate explanation in the applicant's own words, where an explanation is appropriate.

The explanation needs care. An applicant who has pleaded not guilty should not be pressured into describing the facts in a way that amounts to an admission. At the same time, an explanation that contradicts the police facts without any basis can damage credibility. The explanation should be reviewed with both the criminal proceedings and the migration consequences in mind.

The questions are also asked about other people included in the application, such as a dependent child who is old enough to have been charged. Partner visa pending charges disclosure therefore covers every person included in the application, not only the primary applicant. Applicants lodging online answer these questions in the online form, and the guide on how to create an ImmiAccount explains where documents are attached. The 820 partner visa evidence checklist shows how court documents sit alongside relationship evidence in a partner visa pending charges application. The firm's partner visa document checklist explains where character documents fit within the rest of the application.

What happens if pending charges are not disclosed?

Failing to disclose partner visa pending charges is usually far more dangerous than the charges themselves, because it can lead to refusal under public interest criterion 4020 and can damage the applicant's credibility on every other issue.

Public interest criterion 4020 deals with false or misleading information and bogus documents. The Department's policy on that criterion gives a direct example. An applicant answers "No" to the question about convictions, but the Department's records show a conviction. The policy says this would be false or misleading information relevant to the assessment of public interest criterion 4001, the applicant should be given an opportunity to comment, and, if the response does not satisfy the decision maker, the visa would be refused under public interest criterion 4020. The policy states that the issue is not the offence itself, or whether the applicant would have passed the character test, but the fact that the decision maker could not make an informed decision.

The same reasoning applies to charges. A charge in Australia is likely to appear on the national police check obtained for the application. Overseas charges may appear on a foreign police certificate, in court records or through information sharing between countries. An undeclared charge discovered later can turn a manageable partner visa pending charges issue into an integrity problem.

There are other consequences:

• Credibility. A decision maker who finds that a charge was concealed may give less weight to the applicant's evidence about the relationship.
• Natural justice letters. The Department will usually put the information to the applicant in writing. The guide to responding to a section 57 natural justice letter explains that process.
• Future applications. A refusal under public interest criterion 4020 can also affect later visa applications.

If a charge was not disclosed when the application was lodged, the problem should be corrected as soon as possible, with advice. A voluntary correction, with an honest explanation, is in a very different position from a concealed charge discovered by the Department. The firm's partner visa lawyer guide explains how partner visa pending charges disclosures are usually handled, and the article on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application explains how a representative can step in and correct the record.

New charges after lodgement: the duty to tell the Department

If an applicant is charged after the partner visa application has been lodged, the Department must be told, because section 104 of the Migration Act requires applicants to notify changes that make an answer in the application incorrect.

The Department's Form 1022, "Notification of changes in circumstances", is made under section 104. The character answers given at lodgement were correct when they were given. Once a new charge is laid, the answer to the question about charges awaiting legal action becomes incorrect. That is a change in circumstances. The guide to Form 1022 and change of circumstances explains when and how the form is used.

The duty continues for as long as the application is undecided. For onshore applicants, this matters at both stages of the process. The difference between Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 is important here. The Department's policy confirms that the permanent Subclass 801 stage again requires the applicant to satisfy public interest criterion 4001, and that a current police clearance is usually required for that stage. A charge laid after the temporary visa is granted, while the permanent stage is pending, is therefore still a partner visa pending charges issue that must be addressed.

The notification should be accurate and supported by documents. A notification that simply says "I have been charged" without detail usually prompts further requests. Where a representative has been appointed using Form 956, the notification is usually sent through the representative. A better approach is to provide the charge documents, the court details, any bail conditions and a brief, carefully reviewed explanation at the same time. Where the outcome is later known, a further notification should give the result with the court documents. The guide to how long a Subclass 820 onshore application takes explains why the partner visa pending charges period can overlap with several stages of processing.

Applicants are sometimes tempted to wait until the charge is resolved before telling the Department, hoping the charge will be withdrawn. That is a risk. If the Department learns of the charge first, the delay itself can become the issue. In a partner visa pending charges case, timely and accurate notification is part of protecting the application.

How the Department assesses partner visa pending charges

The Department assesses partner visa pending charges under the character requirement in public interest criterion 4001, which requires the applicant to pass the character test in section 501(6) of the Migration Act or, if they do not, to be someone the decision maker has decided not to refuse on character grounds.

A pending charge is not itself a ground for failing the character test. The character test is failed for specific reasons set out in section 501(6). The most common in partner visa matters are:

• A substantial criminal record. This depends on the sentence actually imposed, as explained below. A charge that has not been decided cannot create a substantial criminal record.
• Past and present criminal conduct or general conduct. The decision maker may consider whether, having regard to the person's past and present criminal conduct or general conduct, the person is not of good character. Conduct can be considered even where no conviction has been recorded.
• Risk of future conduct. The decision maker may consider whether there is a risk that the person would engage in criminal conduct in Australia, or harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person, or be a danger to the Australian community.

This is why partner visa pending charges cannot be ignored even if the applicant expects to be acquitted. The facts behind the charge may become relevant to the conduct and risk limbs of the test. The court's final decision is also relevant evidence. An acquittal or a withdrawal of charges is strong evidence against relying on the alleged conduct. A conviction is strong evidence for it.

Where the Department considers that an applicant may not pass the character test, the application is usually referred for specialist character assessment within the Department. If the applicant is found not to pass, the decision about whether to refuse the visa is made under section 501, not simply as a failed visa criterion. That decision involves a discretion and the current Ministerial Direction made under section 499 of the Migration Act. The firm's page on visa cancellations under sections 109, 116 and 501 explains how the same character framework applies when visas are cancelled.

Police certificates are central to this assessment. An Australian national police check and certificates from countries where the applicant has lived for 12 months or more are usually required. In a partner visa pending charges case, the Australian police check is likely to show the charge. The applicant should expect that and make sure the application explains it first. The guide to the Subclass 820 partner visa requirements explains where police certificates fit in the onshore process.

Will the Department wait for the court outcome?

Yes, in many cases. A decision maker who needs to know the outcome of partner visa pending charges to decide character may ask for updates and may wait for the court result, although the Department is not required to delay indefinitely.

The Department's policy on sponsor character, discussed later in this article, says expressly that decision makers may request information about an unresolved criminal matter, including the expected date of finalisation, that decision making should not be unreasonably delayed, and that there is some scope to defer a decision if outstanding charges are likely to be resolved in the near future. A similar practical approach is commonly taken where the applicant is the person charged, although each case turns on its own facts.

For the applicant, this usually means a longer processing period and requests for further information. The guide to responding to a section 56 request for more information explains how those requests work. The general article on how long a Subclass 820 partner visa takes explains why processing times vary so much between applications.

Delay is not the worst outcome. A decision made before the court case ends, on incomplete information, can be worse. In some partner visa pending charges matters, the applicant's best course is to keep the Department informed with regular, short updates and court documents, so that the decision is made on the true final position.

How the court outcome changes a partner visa

The outcome of partner visa pending charges determines which part of the character framework applies, and the difference between outcomes can be decisive.

Charges withdrawn or dismissed, or the applicant found not guilty

Where the charges are withdrawn, dismissed or the applicant is acquitted, there is no conviction and no sentence. The applicant should give the Department the court document confirming the outcome. The decision maker may still consider conduct in limited circumstances, but an acquittal or withdrawal generally carries significant weight. This is the cleanest resolution of partner visa pending charges.

A finding of guilt without a conviction

Many courts can find a person guilty but decide not to record a conviction, for example with a bond or a diversion order. This is not a conviction for many purposes, and it cannot produce a substantial criminal record unless a term of imprisonment was imposed. However, it is still a finding that the conduct occurred, and it remains relevant to the conduct limb of the character test. Form 80 also asks separately about sexually based offences involving a child "including where no conviction was recorded". A non-conviction order does not make partner visa pending charges disappear from the application. It changes how they are assessed.

A conviction with a fine or a community based order

A conviction without imprisonment cannot create a substantial criminal record. It must be disclosed, and the decision maker may consider it under the conduct limb, together with any pattern of offending, but many applicants with minor convictions still satisfy the character requirement.

A sentence of imprisonment

Section 501(7) of the Migration Act defines a substantial criminal record. It includes a sentence to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, and two or more terms of imprisonment where the total of those terms is 12 months or more. A person with a substantial criminal record fails the character test, and the question then becomes whether the decision maker should exercise the discretion not to refuse the visa.

This is the most important point in any partner visa pending charges matter. The threshold depends on the sentence imposed, not the time actually served. A suspended sentence is still a sentence to a term of imprisonment. The Department's policy on sponsor character says this directly for the equivalent sponsor definition, and the same principle has long been applied to section 501. Several shorter sentences can also be added together. A person sentenced to two terms of 6 months can reach the threshold.

The sentence is therefore not only a question for the criminal court. In partner visa pending charges matters, the sentencing outcome is often the single most important fact in the migration file. For a non-citizen, the difference between a sentence just under the threshold and one at or above it may determine whether the person can remain in Australia with their partner.

Why the criminal lawyer must understand the migration consequences

The criminal lawyer handling the charges should understand the migration consequences before any plea is entered or sentencing submissions are made, because decisions in the criminal case can determine whether the partner visa can be granted.

This is one of the most common gaps in partner visa pending charges matters. A criminal lawyer may, quite properly, recommend a plea of guilty to obtain a lighter sentence. For an Australian citizen, a suspended sentence of 12 months might be regarded as a good result. For a partner visa applicant, that same sentence creates a substantial criminal record.

Questions that should be discussed with both lawyers before the plea or sentence include:

• Is a conviction likely, or is a non-conviction order realistically available?
• Could the sentence reach the substantial criminal record threshold, alone or when added to earlier sentences?
• Would a suspended sentence or an intensive correction order be treated as a term of imprisonment?
• Is the offence one that the forms ask about specifically, such as family or domestic violence?
• Should the court be told that the person is a visa applicant and of the migration consequences of the sentence, where that is permitted?
• What documents, such as sentencing remarks, will be needed for the Department afterwards?

Migration advice does not replace criminal advice in a partner visa pending charges matter. It adds information the criminal lawyer needs to advise properly. In practice, the best partner visa pending charges outcomes often come from early communication between the two lawyers, with the client's consent. The article on what an immigration lawyer does and when you need one explains the role in more general terms, and the guide on urgent immigration lawyer advice sets out what to prepare when a court date is close.

The sentencing remarks matter after the case as well. A decision maker considering character will read them. Remarks that record remorse, rehabilitation, the nature of the offending and the person's family circumstances can be important evidence later. In a partner visa pending charges case, the migration file is partly built in the criminal court.

Bail conditions, travel and partner visa pending charges

Bail conditions can directly affect a partner visa, because they may prevent travel, require the surrender of a passport, or restrict where the applicant lives and whom they contact.

Each consequence needs to be checked against the visa process:

• Passport surrender. If the applicant's passport is held by police or the court, the applicant cannot travel, and this may affect any requirement to provide the passport or travel for an interview.
• Offshore applicants. A Subclass 309 applicant who is charged overseas may be unable to leave that country until the case ends. The firm's page on the Subclass 309 offshore partner visa explains the location requirements for that visa.
• No contact conditions. If bail conditions prevent the applicant from contacting the sponsor, or require them to live apart, this raises immediate questions about the relationship assessment. These are discussed later in this guide.
• Residence conditions. A bail condition requiring the applicant to live at a particular address should be reflected accurately in the address details given to the Department.

Onshore applicants who want to travel while a Subclass 820 application is pending usually need a Bridging visa B. Bail conditions may prevent that travel entirely. An applicant should never travel in breach of bail. Breaching bail creates a fresh criminal problem and a fresh partner visa pending charges disclosure.

Bridging visas and cancellation risk while charges are pending

A pending charge can put a bridging visa or other current visa at risk, because the Department has powers to cancel visas in some circumstances where a holder has been charged or where character concerns arise.

The risk depends on the visa the applicant holds. Some bridging visas carry conditions about criminal conduct. In some circumstances the Department may also consider cancellation on character grounds under section 501 or on other grounds under section 116. The firm's guide to bridging visas in Australia explains the different classes, and the article on Bridging visa A conditions and travel explains the visa most onshore partner applicants hold.

If a notice of intention to consider cancellation is received, the time to respond is short and strictly applied. That notice should be treated as urgent. The response should address the charges, the relationship, the effect on the Australian partner and any children, and the stage the criminal case has reached. The firm's article on work rights and bridging visas while a Subclass 820 application is pending explains how the bridging visa connects to the partner application.

Applicants who are in immigration detention, or who are released on bail but have lost their visa, face more complex questions, including whether a valid partner visa application can still be made. Those questions are beyond the scope of this article and require individual advice. For applicants who are already unlawful, the firm's Schedule 3 waiver page explains the additional criteria that can apply.

Partner visa pending charges are often handled best by keeping every visa the applicant holds secure while the court case runs. That means checking conditions, keeping addresses up to date, complying with bail and responding promptly to any Department correspondence.

When the sponsor has pending charges

Charges against the Australian sponsor are assessed under the partner sponsorship rules in regulations 1.20KC and 1.20KD of the Migration Regulations 1994, and the Department's policy states that a sponsorship cannot be refused under regulation 1.20KC only because a criminal matter has not yet been finalised.

Regulation 1.20KC applies to sponsors of Subclass 300, Subclass 309 and Subclass 820 visa applicants. It allows the Department to request Australian and foreign police checks from the sponsor. It requires the Department to refuse to approve the sponsorship if the sponsor has been convicted of a "relevant offence" and has a "significant criminal record" in relation to it, unless the decision maker considers it reasonable to approve the sponsorship.

Relevant offences are defined in regulation 1.20KC(2). They include offences involving violence against a person, including threats of violence; harassment, molestation, intimidation or stalking; breach of an apprehended violence order or similar order; firearms or other dangerous weapons; people smuggling; human trafficking, slavery or slavery like practices, including forced marriage; kidnapping or unlawful confinement; and attempting, aiding or abetting those offences.

Regulation 1.20KD defines a significant criminal record in terms that mirror the substantial criminal record test: a sentence of death, life imprisonment, a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, or two or more terms totalling 12 months or more. The Department's policy confirms that a suspended sentence counts.

For partner visa pending charges against a sponsor, the Department's policy says:

• The sponsorship cannot be refused under regulation 1.20KC because a criminal matter for a relevant offence has not yet been finalised.
• The decision maker may request information about the case, including the expected date of finalisation.
• Information about the case may also be relevant to whether the relationship is genuine.
• Decisions should not be unreasonably delayed, but there is some scope to defer a decision if charges are likely to be resolved soon.
• If the sponsor already has a significant criminal record for a relevant offence, the sponsorship may be refused on that record regardless of the pending matter.

Where the sponsor is convicted, the decision maker deciding whether approval is reasonable must consider, among other things, the time since the sentence was completed, the best interests of any children of the sponsor or applicant, and the length of the relationship. The sponsor must also consent to the Department disclosing convictions for relevant offences to the applicant. Without that consent, the visa cannot be granted. The firm's article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa and the firm's page on partner visa sponsorship limitations explain these rules more broadly.

Partner visa pending charges against a sponsor that do not involve a relevant offence, such as many property or drug offences, fall outside regulation 1.20KC. They may still affect the sponsor personally if the sponsor is not an Australian citizen, because a permanent resident sponsor can face character based cancellation.

Family violence charges between the couple

Where the charge involves alleged family violence between the applicant and the sponsor, the partner visa pending charges issue affects character, sponsorship and the genuineness of the relationship all at once.

Anyone in immediate danger should call 000.

The forms ask separately whether the applicant has been charged with or convicted of family or domestic violence offences, and whether they are the subject of a domestic or family violence order for the protection of another person. A charge between the couple often comes with a protection order and bail conditions preventing contact. Those facts must be disclosed accurately.

Three different situations commonly arise:

• The applicant is charged. The charge is assessed under the character requirement. The facts alleged may also be relevant to the risk limb of the character test, which includes a risk that the person would harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person.
• The sponsor is charged. A violence charge is a relevant offence for regulation 1.20KC. If the sponsor is convicted and has a significant criminal record, the sponsorship must be refused unless approval is reasonable.
• The relationship has ended because of family violence. Where the applicant has suffered family violence by the sponsor and the relationship has ended, the family violence provisions in Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations may allow an onshore applicant to continue towards permanent residence. The firm's family violence partner visa page explains those provisions.

A couple who remain together while a family violence charge is pending need careful advice. A no contact bail condition or protection order may mean they are legally required to live apart. The decision maker will want to understand whether the relationship continues and whether the applicant is acting freely. The Department's policy says that, where it is inclined to approve a sponsor with relevant convictions, an interview should usually be held with the applicant without the sponsor present, to make sure the applicant is not being coerced. The article on what happens to a Subclass 820 application if the relationship breaks down explains the consequences if the relationship does end.

Can pending charges affect the genuine relationship assessment?

Yes. Partner visa pending charges can affect the genuine relationship assessment, because the facts behind a charge, bail conditions and protection orders may show how the couple live and whether the relationship continues.

A decision maker assesses the relationship under the four aspects in the regulations: the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment. A charge can touch each of them. A bail condition requiring separate residence affects the household aspect. An allegation of violence between the couple raises questions about commitment. A charge involving dishonesty may affect how much weight is given to documents.

Charges do not have to weaken the relationship evidence. In many partner visa pending charges cases, the sponsor stands by the applicant, attends court, provides support and is named in the sentencing remarks as a reason for rehabilitation. That evidence can strengthen the commitment aspect. The relationship statement is the client's own account, and where the charges are relevant it should address them honestly. Form 888 statements from people who know the couple can also confirm that the relationship continued through the court process. The guide on how to prove your relationship is genuine explains the four aspects in detail, and the article on preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explains how to present it.

Tribunal decisions on criminal history in partner visa matters

The Administrative Review Tribunal, and the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, have remitted partner visa refusals where criminal history or a sponsor's criminal matters formed part of the background. The following are Subclass 820 matters that the Tribunal remitted, described only by the issues recorded:

• Pham (Migration) [2023] AATA 2643 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were a valid marriage, criminal activities, and a genuine and continuing relationship.
• Lei (Migration) [2024] AATA 1166 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were that the sponsor's resident return visa had been cancelled after a criminal conviction, that the cancellation was set aside on review, and a genuine and continuing relationship.
• Vispo (Migration) [2023] AATA 694 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were that the sponsor's permanent visa was cancelled and that the Tribunal, differently constituted, set aside the cancellation.
• Fouracres (Migration) [2024] AATA 61 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were criminal history, an Australian Federal Police certificate that expired before finalisation, and a new certificate provided to the Tribunal.
• Ellis (Migration) [2024] AATA 3411 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were sponsorship approval, a sponsor convicted of a relevant offence, a significant criminal record, and whether it was reasonable to approve the sponsorship.

These decisions show that criminal history, a sponsor's own visa problems and expired police certificates are issues the Tribunal reviews on the evidence before it. They do not predict the outcome of any other case. Each partner visa pending charges matter depends on its own facts and on the evidence available at the time of decision.

Partner visa pending charges and a refusal

If a partner visa is refused while charges are pending, or because of the outcome of charges, the review pathway depends on the legal basis of the refusal, and the time limits are short and strictly applied.

A refusal because the relationship was not accepted, or because a sponsorship was not approved, is generally reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal. A refusal under section 501 on character grounds follows a different review pathway, with its own time limit. A refusal made personally by the Minister may not be reviewable by the Tribunal at all. The notification letter states which pathway applies.

On review, the Tribunal considers the evidence at the time of its own decision. That can matter in partner visa pending charges cases, because charges that were pending at the Department stage may have been resolved by the time of the hearing. Fresh police certificates, court outcomes and sentencing remarks can then be provided. The firm's page on partner visa refusals, its visa refusals and Tribunal review page, the guide to partner visa appeal options after a refusal and the article on what to expect at an ART review explain the process. Where a Tribunal decision involves a legal error, judicial review may be available.

A refused applicant may also ask whether a new application can be made. The article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains the restrictions that can apply onshore. The article on why partner visas get refused and the guide to common reasons for Subclass 820 refusals set out the wider picture.

Practical steps for partner visa pending charges

The practical steps for partner visa pending charges are to obtain the court documents, get coordinated criminal and migration advice, disclose accurately, notify changes promptly and keep the Department informed until the case ends.

• Collect the documents. Charge sheet, police facts, bail conditions, court dates and any protection orders.
• Get advice before the plea or sentence. Make sure the criminal lawyer knows the person is a visa applicant or sponsor.
• Answer every character question accurately. In the application and in Form 80, for every person included.
• Notify new charges and outcomes. Use Form 1022 under section 104, with documents.
• Protect current visas. Check bridging visa conditions, comply with bail, and keep addresses current.
• Keep the relationship evidence current. Explain any separate living arrangements and provide updated evidence.
• Respond fully to requests. Treat any section 56 request, section 57 letter or notice of intention to cancel as urgent.

The firm's partner visa lawyers page and the guide to the Subclass 820 onshore partner visa explain how these steps fit into the full application. Couples deciding whether to manage the matter themselves may find the article on a partner visa lawyer compared with doing it yourself useful, and a person who already has a representative can seek a second opinion from an immigration lawyer.

Partner visa pending charges advice across Australia

My Migration Lawyers advises applicants and sponsors with partner visa pending charges wherever they live, with consultations held by video.

The firm acts as partner visa lawyers in Sydney and Parramatta, as partner visa lawyers in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide, and for clients on the Gold Coast, in Canberra and in Hobart.

Because pending charges often raise wider character and cancellation issues, the firm also acts as immigration lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. The guides to partner visa lawyers in Sydney and partner visa lawyers in Melbourne, the article on how to choose a partner visa lawyer in Australia and the guide to booking an immigration lawyer consultation may also help.

How My Migration Lawyers helps with partner visa pending charges

My Migration Lawyers acts in many partner visa matters involving criminal charges, character concerns and sponsor criminal history, including complex cases where charges are unresolved, the court timetable is uncertain and the Department is waiting for an outcome. The firm deals with complex partner visa pending charges matters regularly and is capable of handling them from first advice through to Tribunal review.

The firm's work on partner visa pending charges is specific to the problem:

• Assessing the risk early. The firm reviews the charges, the police facts and any earlier history, and advises how each realistic outcome would affect the character requirement and the sponsorship.
• Working with the criminal lawyer. With the client's consent, the firm explains the migration consequences of a plea or sentence to the client's criminal lawyer, so that advice in the criminal case is given with the full picture.
• Timing the application. The firm advises whether to lodge now or after the court outcome, having regard to the applicant's current visa and lawful status.
• Disclosure. The firm prepares accurate answers to the character questions, the supporting court documents and, where appropriate, a careful written explanation, so that the Department hears about the charges from the applicant first.
• Notifications and updates. The firm prepares Form 1022 notifications and regular updates as the court case progresses, and provides the final outcome with the sentencing remarks.
• Character submissions. Where the character test is engaged, the firm prepares submissions and evidence addressing the conduct, rehabilitation, the relationship and the interests of the Australian partner and any children.
• Sponsor issues. Where the sponsor is charged, the firm advises on regulation 1.20KC, police checks and consent to disclosure.
• Review. Where a partner visa is refused, the firm prepares the Tribunal application, evidence and submissions.

The firm's Principal Lawyer, Weiwei Zhang, oversees its partner visa practice. More about the firm is on the about page and its home page.

If you or your partner have partner visa pending charges and need advice before the next court date or Department deadline, book a consultation online. You can also call 1300 040 300.