Partner Visa With a Previous Partner Visa Refusal

A partner visa previous refusal does not stop a couple from ever applying again. Most people whose earlier partner visa was refused can make a new application. What a partner visa previous refusal does change is where the new application can be lodged from, what validity rules apply, and how closely the Department of Home Affairs will read the new file against the old one.

This article is for couples whose earlier partner visa was refused, whose review is finished or was not pursued, and who now want to apply again. It explains whether a partner visa previous refusal creates any bar, how section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 and item 1124B of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 operate, where you can apply from, how the earlier file is used, what PIC 4020 means if false information was found, and how to fix the refusal reasons before lodging. If your review rights are still open, read the guide to partner visa refusal appeal options first, because review is a different question. For the wider legal framework, see the complete guide to partner visas in Australia.

This article is also different from the question of applying for a partner visa after some other kind of visa was refused, such as a student or visitor visa. That situation is covered in the article on a partner visa after a visa refusal. Here, the refused visa was itself a partner visa, and the history of that partner visa previous refusal is the main issue.

Can You Apply for a Partner Visa Again After a Previous Refusal?

Yes. There is no general rule that prevents a person from applying for a partner visa again because an earlier partner visa was refused. A partner visa previous refusal is not, by itself, a lifetime or fixed-period ban.

The Migration Act and the Regulations deal with repeat applications through specific rules rather than a blanket prohibition. The rules that matter most for a couple with a partner visa previous refusal are:

• Section 48 of the Act, which limits the visas a person in Australia can apply for if they hold no substantive visa and have had a visa refused or cancelled since they last entered Australia.
• Paragraph 1124B(3)(e) of Schedule 1, which sets extra validity requirements for a partner applicant who is subject to section 48, including that they must not have been refused a partner visa since they last entered Australia.
• Paragraph 1124B(3)(d) of Schedule 1, which stops a Subclass 820 or Subclass 309 holder from making a new Subclass 801 application within a short period after a partner visa refusal.
• PIC 4020, the integrity criterion, which can create a non-grant period if the earlier refusal was made because false or misleading information, a bogus document or unproven identity was found.
• Schedule 3, which adds criteria for an onshore Subclass 820 applicant who holds no substantive visa when they apply.

If none of these rules applies, a new application can be lodged and is assessed on its merits. The fact of the partner visa previous refusal still matters, because the decision maker will read the earlier decision and the earlier evidence, but it does not decide the new application.

That is the key point most couples miss. The new application is not an appeal. The Department does not ask whether the first decision was right. It asks whether the criteria are met now, on the evidence now before it. A strong new application can succeed where the first one failed, but only if it deals honestly and directly with the reasons the first one failed.

Is There a Ban After a Partner Visa Previous Refusal?

No, there is no general ban, but there are specific bars that apply in particular situations. Whether one of them applies to your partner visa previous refusal depends on where you are, what visa you hold and why the earlier application was refused.

Section 48 and the partner visa exception

Section 48 of the Act applies to a non-citizen in the migration zone who does not hold a substantive visa and who, since last entering Australia, has had a visa refused or cancelled. A person subject to section 48 can only apply for a visa of a class prescribed by the Regulations. Regulation 2.12 prescribes the partner visa class, so a person subject to section 48 may, in principle, still apply for a Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visa. The visa refusals page explains how section 48 works more generally.

This exception is why many people believe a partner application is always available onshore. For a partner visa previous refusal, that belief is wrong.

No second onshore partner application for a section 48 person

Subparagraph 1124B(3)(e)(i) provides that a person subject to section 48 cannot make a valid partner application if they have had a partner visa refused since they last entered Australia. Departmental policy states that the purpose of this rule is to prevent serial applications on the basis of a claimed relationship.

In practical terms, a person whose onshore partner visa was refused, who has stayed in Australia since, and who now holds only a bridging visa or no visa at all, generally cannot lodge another onshore partner application. An application lodged in breach of this rule is invalid. An invalid application is not assessed, and it does not give the applicant a bridging visa. This is one of the most serious traps in partner visa previous refusal matters.

Paragraph 1124B(3A)(b) adds a continuity rule. If the applicant left and re-entered Australia while holding a bridging visa, they are taken to have been continuously in Australia despite the travel. A trip on a Bridging visa B does not reset the last entry date.

Even where a section 48 applicant has not been refused a partner visa since last entry, subparagraphs 1124B(3)(e)(ii) and (iii) require more at lodgement: the sponsorship form completed by the Australian partner must be lodged with the application, and two written declarations, in the form the law requires, must be provided by eligible people who know the couple. The Subclass 820 service page explains the onshore pathway in more detail.

The short bar on a new Subclass 801 application

Paragraph 1124B(3)(d) deals with a narrower situation. If the applicant holds a Subclass 820 or Subclass 309 visa when making a Subclass 801 application, they must not have had a partner visa refused in the short period immediately before that application. Departmental policy explains that this closes a gap that would otherwise let a person refused the permanent stage lodge a fresh application while still holding the temporary visa. The difference between the two stages is explained in Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801.

PIC 4020 non-grant periods

If the partner visa previous refusal was made under PIC 4020 because a bogus document or false or misleading information was given, PIC 4020(2) can prevent the grant of a later visa for three years. If the refusal was made because the applicant did not satisfy the decision maker of their identity, PIC 4020(2B) can prevent grant for ten years. These periods are explained in more detail further below.

The sponsor's own history

The Australian partner's sponsorship history is a separate issue. If the sponsor has sponsored other partners before, the rules on partner visa sponsorship limitations may apply, and they should be checked before any new application is lodged.

How Long Should You Wait After a Partner Visa Previous Refusal?

There is no fixed waiting period after a partner visa previous refusal, unless a specific rule applies. The law does not say that a couple must wait a set number of months or years before applying again. The right time to apply is when the reasons for the refusal have been fixed and the new application can validly be made.

A waiting period can arise in four situations:

• A PIC 4020 non-grant period. If the earlier refusal was made under PIC 4020, a later visa that includes PIC 4020 generally cannot be granted during the non-grant period unless the criterion is waived. An application lodged during that period is likely to be refused.
• The short Subclass 801 bar. Paragraph 1124B(3)(d) prevents a Subclass 820 or Subclass 309 holder from making a new Subclass 801 application for a short period after a partner visa refusal.
• The section 48 position. A person subject to section 48 who has been refused a partner visa since last entry cannot apply onshore at all. Waiting in Australia does not change that. The position only changes if the person leaves and later re-enters Australia, or applies from outside Australia.
• An exclusion period. A person who left Australia unlawfully or on certain bridging visas may face an exclusion period for some visas.

Outside those rules, time is a matter of evidence rather than law. A couple refused because the relationship was new, or because they had not yet lived together, may need time for the relationship to build a real history. A couple refused because evidence was missing may be ready to apply again as soon as that evidence is gathered. Applying too soon, before anything has changed, is the most common reason a partner visa previous refusal turns into a second refusal.

Where Can You Apply From After a Partner Visa Previous Refusal?

Where you can apply from depends on your visa status at the time of the new application. A partner visa previous refusal limits onshore options for some applicants and not for others.

You hold a substantive visa in Australia

If you are in Australia and hold a substantive visa, such as a visitor visa, student visa or work visa, section 48 does not apply to you. That is because section 48 only applies to a person who does not hold a substantive visa. A person in this position can usually lodge a new onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application, provided the visa they hold does not carry a no further stay condition.

That proviso matters. Many people who return to Australia after a partner visa previous refusal do so on a visitor visa, and a visitor visa granted after a refusal may carry condition 8503. Condition 8503 prevents a valid onshore application unless the condition is first waived under section 41(2A). The article on condition 8503 and the Subclass 820 visa explains when a waiver may be available. Couples considering this path should also read the article on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa.

Lodging while still holding a substantive visa also usually produces a Bridging visa A, which is generally the most favourable bridging visa outcome. The bridging visas overview explains the differences between the classes.

You hold no substantive visa in Australia

If you are in Australia without a substantive visa, two separate sets of rules apply.

First, section 48 and subparagraph 1124B(3)(e)(i). If you have had a partner visa refused since you last entered Australia, you generally cannot lodge another onshore partner application at all. If the earlier partner visa previous refusal happened before your last entry, the bar in subparagraph 1124B(3)(e)(i) does not apply, but the other section 48 requirements may still apply if a different visa has been refused since that entry.

Second, Schedule 3. An onshore Subclass 820 applicant who does not hold a substantive visa at the time of application must also meet the Schedule 3 criteria, unless the decision maker is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying them under paragraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii). Criterion 3001 looks at how long the applicant has been without a substantive visa. Lodging within 28 days of ceasing to hold a substantive visa satisfies criterion 3001 only, and criteria 3003 and 3004 can still apply unless they are not applied for compelling reasons. Compelling reasons are assessed at the time of decision. The Schedule 3 criteria guide and the Schedule 3 waiver service page explain this in detail.

People without a substantive visa after a partner visa previous refusal are often in a time-critical position. A bridging visa linked to the refused application ends after the refusal and any review are finished, and a person who becomes unlawful can be detained and removed. If that is your situation, get urgent immigration advice before taking any step.

You are outside Australia

If you are outside Australia, section 48 and Schedule 3 do not apply to an offshore partner application. The offshore partner pathway is the Subclass 309 visa, and it is lodged from outside Australia. A couple with a partner visa previous refusal may find that applying from outside Australia is the only valid option for the applicant, or the safer one. The same assessment of the earlier file, the same integrity criterion and the same need to fix the refusal reasons apply wherever the new application is lodged.

Leaving Australia also has consequences of its own. A person who leaves Australia as an unlawful non-citizen, or on certain bridging visas, can face an exclusion period for some later visas. That risk must be assessed before departure, not afterwards.

How the Department Uses the File From a Partner Visa Previous Refusal

The Department uses the file from a partner visa previous refusal as evidence. The decision maker on the new application can see the earlier application, the documents lodged with it, the statements, any interview records and the reasons for the earlier decision. The new application is read against all of that material.

What the Department can see

Departmental systems record every application, every document uploaded, every request for information and every decision. For a partner visa previous refusal, the material usually includes:

• the earlier application form and the answers given in it;
• the earlier relationship statement and the sponsor's statement;
• the earlier Form 888 statements from friends and family;
• the earlier relationship evidence, such as leases, bank records, photographs and travel records;
• any section 56 request for more information and the response;
• any section 57 natural justice letter and the response;
• interview records, home visit notes and records of phone calls with the applicant or sponsor;
• the earlier Form 80 personal particulars and any Form 1022 change of circumstances notices; and
• the decision record and, if there was a review, the Tribunal's decision.

Earlier visitor, student and other visa applications are also on the system. Answers given in those applications about relationship status, employment and travel are often compared with what the partner application says.

Why inconsistencies matter after a partner visa previous refusal

Inconsistencies matter because the partner visa is decided on credibility and evidence. Under the Regulations, the decision maker must consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship and the nature of the commitment. Those four aspects are assessed from the statements and documents. If the new statements tell a different story from the old ones, the decision maker will want to know why.

Typical inconsistencies in partner visa previous refusal cases include:

• a different date or place of first meeting;
• a different date on which the couple started living together;
• a different account of when the relationship became committed;
• a previous relationship or marriage that was not disclosed the first time;
• a different address history or a different account of who lives in the household; and
• a different account of the reasons for time spent apart.

Not every difference is a problem. People remember dates differently, and an honest correction is far better than repeating an earlier error. What matters is that the difference is identified, explained and supported by evidence. A new application that simply ignores the earlier version invites the decision maker to draw the worst inference.

PIC 4020 and false or misleading information

PIC 4020 is the integrity criterion. It is a criterion for the Subclass 820 under clause 820.226 and for the Subclass 801 under clause 801.325, and it also applies to the offshore partner visa. A partner visa previous refusal raises PIC 4020 in two different ways.

The first is the current application. PIC 4020(1) requires that there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the current application, or in relation to a visa the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made. If the new application repeats a false statement from the earlier one, the current application is affected.

The second is the earlier refusal itself. If the partner visa previous refusal was made under PIC 4020 because of a bogus document or false or misleading information, PIC 4020(2) prevents grant of a later visa that includes PIC 4020 where that refusal occurred in the three years before the new application. If the earlier refusal was made because the applicant did not satisfy the decision maker of their identity, PIC 4020(2B) applies a ten year period. These non-grant periods can also apply to members of the applicant's family unit.

Three further points matter:

• Purposeful falsity. Departmental policy, following the Full Federal Court in Trivedi, requires that the information or document has the quality of purposeful falsity. An innocent mistake that is explained is not enough for a PIC 4020 refusal.
• Waiver. PIC 4020(4) allows the requirements in PIC 4020(1) and (2) to be waived where compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compelling or compassionate circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, justify grant. There is no waiver of the identity requirements.
• Triggers for closer scrutiny. Departmental policy lists triggers for investigation, including claims that are inconsistent with claims made earlier by the applicant or sponsor, and an earlier application withdrawn after the applicant was asked to comment on the genuineness of a document.

If PIC 4020 was part of your partner visa previous refusal, the new application cannot be prepared until the exact finding, the date of the refusal and the current position on any non-grant period are known.

Partner Visa Previous Refusal Reasons and How to Fix Them First

The refusal reasons must be fixed before the new application is lodged. A partner visa previous refusal is usually based on one or two specific findings, and the new application succeeds or fails on whether those findings are answered. The common reasons are explained in why partner visas get refused and in the article on the most common Subclass 820 refusal reasons.

The relationship was not accepted as genuine and continuing

This is the most common reason for a partner visa previous refusal. The decision maker was not satisfied that the couple had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, that the relationship was genuine and continuing, or that the couple lived together or did not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

To fix it, the new application must answer each adverse finding. If the decision maker found the financial evidence thin, the new application needs real evidence of shared finances. If the decision maker found the couple had little evidence of living together, the new application needs proof of the household over time. If the decision maker doubted the account of how the relationship developed, the relationship statement must address that account directly, honestly and in detail. The guides to proving a genuine relationship and preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explain what decision makers look for.

For de facto couples, the relationship must also meet the legal definition of a de facto relationship, including the 12 month requirement unless an exception applies. The de facto partner visa guide and the article on the 12 month de facto rule for the Subclass 820 explain those rules. Same-sex couples apply under the same criteria, as explained on the same-sex partner visa page.

Character

If the partner visa previous refusal was based on character, the relevant provisions are section 501 of the Act and PIC 4001. A character refusal under section 501 can have consequences well beyond the partner visa, and section 501E can restrict which visas a person may apply for while in the migration zone after a section 501 refusal. A character-based partner visa previous refusal needs specific legal advice before any new step. Where a visa was cancelled rather than refused, the visa cancellations page explains the related issues.

Health

The health requirement for the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 is PIC 4007, which allows a waiver in some circumstances. If the partner visa previous refusal followed a health finding, the new application should deal with the medical position as it is now, and with the matters relevant to the waiver, including the circumstances of the Australian partner and any children.

Schedule 3

If the partner visa previous refusal was an onshore refusal because Schedule 3 was not met and no compelling reasons were accepted, the problem may repeat itself. A new onshore application by the same person, still without a substantive visa, faces the same Schedule 3 criteria, and possibly the section 48 bar described above. The question is whether circumstances have changed so that compelling reasons now exist, or whether the application should be made from outside Australia. The Schedule 3 partner visa waiver guide explains how compelling reasons are assessed.

Procedural refusals

Some partner visa previous refusal decisions are made because a request was not answered, a health check was not done, or police certificates were not provided. These refusals are often the easiest to fix, because the underlying relationship was never really assessed. They still count as refusals for section 48 and subparagraph 1124B(3)(e)(i), so the onshore position must be checked with care.

Relationship breakdown and family violence

Some refusals follow a separation. If the earlier relationship has ended and the applicant now has a new partner, the new application is about a new relationship, and the earlier file will still be read for consistency. The relationship breakdown guide explains how breakdown affects an application. Where family violence was part of the history, the family violence partner visa page explains the special provisions in Division 1.5 of the Regulations.

What New Evidence Matters After a Partner Visa Previous Refusal?

The new evidence that matters most after a partner visa previous refusal is evidence created since the refusal that answers the specific findings in the decision. Time has usually passed, and the relationship has usually continued. That continued life together is often the strongest new evidence available.

Useful new evidence often includes:

• Shared finances since the refusal: a joint account in actual use, shared bills, joint savings, shared loans or one partner supporting the other.
• The household since the refusal: a lease or mortgage in both names, utility accounts, mail to both partners at the same address and evidence of how household tasks and costs are shared.
• Social recognition since the refusal: invitations addressed to both partners, travel together, joint memberships, and Form 888 statements from people who have known the couple over time.
• Commitment since the refusal: wills, insurance and superannuation nominations, plans for the future, and, where relevant, a marriage or the registration of the relationship.
• Contact during any separation: where the couple were apart after the partner visa previous refusal, records of contact, visits and support during that time.

The new relationship statement should not simply repeat the earlier one. It should give the couple's own account, accurately and in their own words, and it should deal openly with anything the earlier decision found unclear. The Form 888 statements should come from people who can speak from personal knowledge. The Form 888 examples and common mistakes article shows the difference between a useful statement and a weak one.

The partner visa document checklist and the Subclass 820 evidence checklist list the standard documents. For a partner visa previous refusal, the standard list is only the starting point. The evidence must be organised around the findings that caused the refusal.

Disclosing a Partner Visa Previous Refusal on the New Application

The partner visa previous refusal must be disclosed on the new application. The application asks about previous visa applications, refusals and cancellations, and section 101 of the Act requires answers to questions in an application form to be correct. The Department already holds the record, so non-disclosure will not hide the refusal. It will only add a credibility problem and a possible PIC 4020 problem to the original one.

Disclosure has three parts:

• Answer the questions correctly. Every question about earlier applications, refusals, cancellations and previous relationships must be answered truthfully and completely, for the applicant and the sponsor.
• Explain what has changed. A short, factual submission should identify the earlier decision, the findings made, and the evidence that now answers those findings.
• Correct earlier errors openly. If something in the earlier application was wrong, the new application should say so, explain how the error happened and provide the correct information with evidence. An honest correction made by the applicant is treated very differently from an inconsistency the decision maker finds for themselves.

Applicants also have a continuing duty under section 104 to notify the Department of changes in circumstances after lodging. The ImmiAccount guide explains how applications and notices are lodged online.

What Tribunal Decisions Show About Earlier Applications and False Information

Tribunal decisions show that earlier applications and earlier answers are examined closely in partner visa matters, and that the explanation and evidence given about them can change the outcome. They are a useful guide for anyone with a partner visa previous refusal who is concerned about how the earlier file will be treated.

In each decision below, the Tribunal set aside the refusal and remitted the matter, which means it sent the application back to the Department to reconsider. A remittal is not a grant. Five of the decisions were made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) replaced it on 14 October 2024. The PALASIT decision was made by the ART. The issues listed are the issues each decision was reported on:

• 2107016 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2250 (Subclass 820): the parties were found to have provided false or misleading information, and the applicants had failed to disclose details of a previous relationship and a Subclass 300 visa application.
• PALASIT (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1914 (Subclass 820): false or misleading information, a previous relationship that was not declared, whether there was an element of fraud or deception, and the discretion to waive the criterion.
• TRUONG (Migration) [2024] AATA 680 (Subclass 820): false or misleading information in a material particular in a previous visitor visa application about marital status, where the couple were separated but still living together.
• Pham (Migration) [2021] AATA 4350 (Subclass 820): false or misleading information in a previous visitor visa application, where the applicant answered married but was separated at the time and later divorced, with credible witness and other evidence.
• Khakpour (Migration) [2023] AATA 4366 (Subclass 820): a Federal Court remittal concerning misleading information in a previous visa application, a bogus degree certificate and transcripts, and compassionate or compelling circumstances.
• Lui (Migration) [2024] AATA 2784 (Subclass 820): misleading information in a previous visa application about employment in a regional area, a different identity previously declared, and compassionate or compelling circumstances.

These decisions do not establish that any particular explanation will be accepted in a later case. Each turned on its own facts. What they show is the pattern that matters for a partner visa previous refusal: earlier applications are read, undisclosed relationships and earlier answers are tested, and the outcome depends on what actually happened, whether the information was material, and the evidence and circumstances put forward. The article on what to expect in ART review explains how the Tribunal process works for those whose review is still open.

Partner Visa Previous Refusal Scenarios: How the Rules Apply

The rules apply differently depending on the facts. The following scenarios are hypothetical and are included only to show how the rules on a partner visa previous refusal interact. They are not based on any client.

Scenario one: refused onshore, still in Australia on a bridging visa

A applied for a Subclass 820 visa in Australia while holding a visitor visa. The application was refused because the decision maker was not satisfied the relationship was genuine. A did not seek review and remains in Australia, now holding no substantive visa. Because A is subject to section 48 and has been refused a partner visa since last entering Australia, subparagraph 1124B(3)(e)(i) prevents A from making a valid new onshore partner application. The realistic pathway is an application made from outside Australia, after the evidence problems identified in the decision have been addressed and after the consequences of departure have been assessed.

Scenario two: refused, departed, returned on a new visa

B was refused a Subclass 820 visa, left Australia, and later returned on a visitor visa. Because the partner visa previous refusal occurred before B's last entry, and B now holds a substantive visa, section 48 does not apply. B may be able to lodge a new onshore application, unless the visitor visa carries condition 8503. If it does, a waiver must be obtained first. The Department will still read the earlier file, and B's new relationship statement must deal with the findings in the earlier decision.

Scenario three: refused under PIC 4020

C's earlier partner application was refused under PIC 4020 because a document was found to be bogus. C's new application, made within the non-grant period, will generally be refused unless the requirement is waived on compelling or compassionate grounds. Before C applies again, the exact finding, the date of the refusal and any evidence relevant to a waiver must be identified, and the new application must be accurate in every particular.

These scenarios show why the same partner visa previous refusal can lead to very different advice. The answer depends on the applicant's current status, the date of last entry, the reasons for refusal and the evidence now available.

Common Mistakes Couples Make After a Partner Visa Previous Refusal

The most common mistake after a partner visa previous refusal is lodging again quickly with the same evidence and the same story, hoping a different decision maker will see it differently. The new decision maker reads the earlier refusal first. A repeat application with nothing new usually meets the same findings.

Other common mistakes include:

• Lodging an invalid onshore application. A person subject to section 48 who has been refused a partner visa since last entry cannot make a valid onshore partner application. Lodging anyway gives no bridging visa and can leave the person unlawful.
• Ignoring condition 8503. A new visitor visa granted after the partner visa previous refusal may carry a no further stay condition, which must be waived before a valid onshore application can be made.
• Leaving Australia without advice. Departure can resolve one problem and create another, including an exclusion period for some later visas.
• Changing the story. A new account that contradicts the earlier one, without explanation, damages credibility and can raise PIC 4020.
• Not disclosing a previous relationship. As the Tribunal decisions above show, undisclosed earlier relationships and applications are examined closely.
• Not reading the decision. Many couples have never read the full reasons for their partner visa previous refusal. Without the reasons, the new application cannot answer them.
• Using different statements for the sponsor and applicant. The two accounts must be consistent with each other as well as with the earlier file.
• Missing the sponsor's own issues. The sponsor's history, including any limitation on sponsorship, should be checked before lodging.

If you prepared the earlier application yourself, the comparison of using a partner visa lawyer or doing it yourself sets out the practical differences. If you used a representative and want a fresh view, the article on changing your immigration lawyer explains how files move between representatives. The neutral comparison in partner visa migration agent or lawyer explains how the two professions differ.

Getting the Old Decision Record Before You Lodge Again

The old decision record should be obtained and reviewed before a new application is lodged after a partner visa previous refusal. The decision record states the criteria that were not met, the evidence relied on and the reasons. Where there was a Tribunal review, the Tribunal's decision sets out its own findings.

Many couples no longer have a complete copy of what was lodged the first time, or never had one if a representative lodged it. That is normal. The applicant is not expected to reconstruct the old file from memory. The Department's records can be requested, including through a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, and the applicant's visa history can be confirmed through VEVO and Department and Tribunal records. A lawyer acting for the couple can make those requests on their behalf.

Once the record is available, the review should identify:

• every criterion the decision maker found was not met;
• every adverse finding of fact, and the evidence it was based on;
• anything said in the earlier statements, interviews or forms that is wrong, incomplete or inconsistent;
• whether PIC 4020 was raised, and if so, on what basis and with what result;
• the applicant's immigration status since the refusal, including any later visa, condition and entry date; and
• whether section 48, subparagraph 1124B(3)(e)(i), paragraph 1124B(3)(d) or Schedule 3 applies to a new application.

This review is effectively a second opinion on the earlier matter. The guide to getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer explains what that involves. Where an earlier application is still pending and was lodged without help, the article on hiring a lawyer after lodgement applies. Where a representative is appointed for the new application, the Form 956 and 956A guide explains how the appointment works.

Where the earlier refusal involved an error of law rather than a merits question, and court proceedings are still within time, the judicial review page and the guide to choosing a visa appeal lawyer explain that separate path. For couples whose review rights are finished, the focus is the new application.

After lodgement, the new application is processed like any other partner application. The articles on Subclass 820 processing times and how long the onshore partner visa takes explain the processing stages. The full requirements are set out in the Subclass 820 visa guide, the Subclass 820 requirements and documents guide and the complete Subclass 820 partner visa guide. Couples planning to marry offshore first may also consider the Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa.

How My Migration Lawyers Helps With a Partner Visa Previous Refusal

My Migration Lawyers treats a partner visa previous refusal as a matter that must be fully understood before anything new is lodged. The firm's starting point is the earlier decision, not the new form. A new application is prepared only once the reasons for the refusal, the applicant's current status and the validity rules are clear.

In practice, the firm's approach to a partner visa previous refusal follows these steps:

• Obtain the old file and decision record. The firm requests the Department's records and, where relevant, the Tribunal decision, and confirms the applicant's visa history through VEVO and Department and Tribunal records. Clients are not asked to produce documents they do not have.
• Analyse the refusal reasons. The firm identifies each criterion the decision maker found was not met and each adverse finding, and compares the earlier statements, forms and interview records for inconsistencies.
• Check validity and location. The firm assesses section 48, subparagraph 1124B(3)(e)(i), paragraph 1124B(3)(d), any condition 8503 and the Schedule 3 position, and advises whether the new application can validly be made in Australia or should be made from outside Australia.
• Assess PIC 4020 and character. Where the partner visa previous refusal involved false or misleading information, a bogus document, identity or character, the firm advises on any non-grant period, the PIC 4020(4) waiver and the section 501 position before anything is lodged.
• Build the new evidence around the findings. The couple gives their own account in their relationship statement, which they review and correct, and the firm organises the evidence of the four aspects of the relationship around the specific findings that caused the refusal.
• Disclose and explain. The firm prepares the new application with full and correct disclosure of the partner visa previous refusal, and a submission explaining what has changed and correcting any earlier error openly.
• Manage the application to decision. The firm responds to requests for information and natural justice letters, and keeps the applicant's status under watch through processing.

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex partner matters and acts in many matters involving a partner visa previous refusal, including earlier refusals on genuine relationship grounds, Schedule 3 refusals, section 48 cases and PIC 4020 findings. The firm is capable of handling these matters from the first review of the old file through to the new decision. Matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. No outcome can be promised in any migration matter, but a careful review before lodging again is the step that prevents most avoidable second refusals. The partner visa refusals service page explains the firm's refusal work, and you can read more about the firm's partner visa lawyers, the partner visa lawyer guide and when an immigration lawyer is needed for a partner visa.

The firm acts for clients across Australia, including through its partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. Consultations are held by video, so location is no barrier. You can learn more about My Migration Lawyers or read what to expect from a consultation.

If you have a partner visa previous refusal and want to apply again, speak to a lawyer before you lodge.

Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your partner visa previous refusal reviewed. You can also call 1300 040 300.