Partner Visa Refusal Lawyer: What the Lawyer Does

What does a partner visa refusal lawyer do?

A partner visa refusal lawyer is a lawyer who acts for a couple after the Department of Home Affairs refuses a partner visa, and whose first job is to protect the right to review before the deadline passes. A partner visa refusal lawyer reads the decision record, identifies each ground of refusal, confirms the 28-day review deadline and who must apply, lodges the application with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), and then builds the evidence and submissions that answer the reasons the Department gave. This article explains that work step by step, from the day the refusal arrives.

The article is written for couples who have just received a refusal and still have time to act. It is not a general explanation of partner visa law, which is covered in the complete guide to partner visas in Australia. It shows what a partner visa refusal lawyer at My Migration Lawyers actually does on a refused file, and why the order of those steps matters. Couples who want to understand their review options first can read partner visa refused: your appeal options. Couples who already know they need help can go straight to the firm's Partner Visa Refusals service page.

A refusal is not the end of a partner visa matter. In most cases it is the start of a second, more demanding stage in which the Tribunal looks at the whole application again. The Tribunal is not limited to the evidence the Department had. It decides the matter afresh on the evidence before it at the time of its own decision. That is why the work a partner visa refusal lawyer does in the first week shapes everything that follows.

Why the first days after a refusal matter

The first days matter because the review deadline is fixed by statute and runs from notification, not from the day the couple first reads the letter. A couple who spends two weeks feeling shocked, collecting opinions or waiting for a reply from the Department has used half of the time available. A partner visa refusal lawyer treats the deadline as the only date that cannot move, and organises everything else around it. The firm's guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains why speed matters in any migration matter with a statutory time limit.

When should you contact a partner visa refusal lawyer?

A couple should contact a partner visa refusal lawyer on the day the refusal is received, or as soon as possible after it, and always well before the 28-day review deadline ends. The earlier the partner visa refusal lawyer is engaged, the more of the 28 days is available for reading the decision, deciding on the right course and lodging a complete review application.

There is no advantage in waiting. The Tribunal application itself can be lodged quickly once the lawyer has confirmed the deadline and the right applicant. Most of the substantive work, such as new evidence, witness statements and legal submissions, is prepared after lodgement and before the hearing. Waiting to "get everything ready" before lodging is one of the most common reasons couples come close to losing their review rights. A partner visa refusal lawyer separates the two tasks: lodge first, within time, then prepare the case properly.

Couples who prepared the application themselves

Many refused applications were prepared by the couple without a lawyer. That is common, and it is not a reason for embarrassment. The firm regularly takes over refused matters that couples lodged themselves. The articles on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application and a partner visa lawyer compared with doing it yourself explain what changes when a lawyer comes in at this stage.

Couples who already had a representative

Some couples were represented when the application was refused and now want a different lawyer for the review. A couple may change representatives at any time. The guides to changing your immigration lawyer in Australia and getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer explain how a new partner visa refusal lawyer takes over a file without losing time.

Day one: how a partner visa refusal lawyer reads the decision record

On day one, a partner visa refusal lawyer reads the refusal notification and the full decision record, records the date and method of notification, and lists every criterion the delegate found was not satisfied. Nothing else is decided until that reading is complete, because every later step depends on what the Department actually found.

The notification letter

The notification letter tells the couple that the visa has been refused, which visa or visas were refused, and what review rights exist. The law requires a refusal notice for a reviewable decision to state that the decision can be reviewed, the time within which review may be sought, who can apply and where the application can be made. A partner visa refusal lawyer reads that part of the letter closely and then checks it against the law. A notice that wrongly states the review rights can have legal consequences, and the lawyer notes any defect, but never relies on a defect as a reason to delay.

The lawyer also records how the letter was sent. Under section 494C of the Migration Act 1958, the day a person is taken to have received a document depends on the method used to give it. Most partner visa refusals are sent electronically through ImmiAccount or by email, and the date of deemed receipt is usually the day the decision was sent, not the day it was opened. The 28 days are counted from that date of notification.

The decision record

The decision record is the delegate's written reasons. It sets out the criteria considered, the evidence the delegate relied on, the findings of fact and the conclusion on each criterion. A partner visa refusal lawyer reads it as a lawyer reads a judgment: to find the precise reason the application failed, and to see whether that reason rests on a finding of fact, a gap in evidence, a legal error or a discretionary judgment.

The partner visa refusal lawyer pays particular attention to three things:

• The criterion or criteria that were not met. A refusal can rest on one criterion or several. Each one must be answered on review.
• The evidence the delegate said was missing or unpersuasive. A finding that there was "insufficient evidence" of a joint household is very different from a finding that the couple gave inconsistent accounts.
• The adverse information the delegate relied on. If the decision rests on information the couple did not know about or did not have a fair chance to answer, that matters on review.

Earlier correspondence from the Department

The lawyer also reads the Department's earlier letters, such as any section 56 request for more information and any section 57 natural justice letter, and the couple's responses. Those letters often show where the case went wrong before the refusal was made. A section 57 letter that was answered briefly, or not answered at all, is a common feature of refused files.

Identifying the refusal grounds

A partner visa refusal lawyer identifies the refusal grounds by matching each finding in the decision record to the specific criterion in the Migration Regulations 1994 that the delegate said was not met. The answer decides what evidence the review needs, whether review is the right course, and how strong the case is likely to be.

The common grounds of partner visa refusal fall into recognisable groups. The firm's article on why partner visas get refused and its list of the most common reasons Subclass 820 visas are refused describe them in detail. For this purpose, the partner visa refusal lawyer sorts the ground into one of the following categories.

The genuine and continuing relationship

The most common ground is that the delegate was not satisfied that the couple are in a genuine and continuing relationship. The delegate assesses four aspects of the relationship: the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment. A partner visa refusal lawyer reads the findings on each aspect separately. A delegate may accept the social aspects and the commitment but reject the financial aspects and the household. The review evidence must answer the aspects that were rejected. The firm's guides to partner visa relationship evidence and preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explain how each aspect is assessed. Couples in a de facto relationship should also read about the de facto partner visa and the 12-month rule.

Schedule 3 criteria

An onshore applicant who did not hold a substantive visa when the application was lodged must generally satisfy the Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 unless the decision maker is satisfied that there are compelling reasons not to apply them. A refusal on this ground turns on whether compelling reasons exist. That is a question the Tribunal decides for itself on review. The firm's Schedule 3 waiver page, and its articles on Schedule 3 criteria for applicants who are unlawful and the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver, explain the test.

False or misleading information (PIC 4020)

Some refusals rest on a finding that the applicant gave false or misleading information, or a bogus document, in the partner application or in an earlier visa application. These findings can carry consequences beyond the refusal itself, and a partner visa refusal lawyer treats them as serious from the first day. The question on review is usually whether the information was in fact false or misleading, whether it was material, and whether a waiver is available.

The sponsorship limitation

Regulation 1.20J limits a sponsor to two partners in a lifetime and requires five years between sponsorships, subject to compelling circumstances. A refusal on this ground can sometimes be overcome on review if the five years have passed by the time the Tribunal decides, or if compelling circumstances are shown. The firm's sponsorship limitations page and its article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner explain the rule.

Character, police certificates and health

Some refusals are not about the relationship at all. They rest on a missing or expired police certificate, an outstanding health examination, or a character concern. These grounds can often be answered on review with documents that were missing when the delegate decided. The partner visa refusal lawyer distinguishes these from refusals under section 501 of the Migration Act on character grounds, which follow a different review pathway.

Relationship ended or family violence

If the relationship has ended since lodgement, an onshore applicant may still be able to proceed if family violence provisions apply or another exception is met. A partner visa refusal lawyer acting in that situation works closely with the firm's family violence partner visa lawyers. The firm's article on what happens when a Subclass 820 relationship breaks down explains the wider rules.

Refusal or invalidity?

The partner visa refusal lawyer also confirms that the decision really is a refusal. A finding that an application was never valid is not a refusal on the merits. It does not open the same review pathway, and it changes the bridging visa position. Couples who are unsure what kind of decision they received should send the letter to a lawyer immediately rather than assume.

Checking the 28-day deadline and who must apply

A partner visa refusal lawyer checks two things before any review application is lodged: the exact last day for applying, and the exact person who has the right to apply. Under subsection 347(3) of the Migration Act 1958, an application for review of a partner visa refusal must be made within 28 days after the day the applicant is notified of the decision, or within 7 days if the applicant is in immigration detention.

Counting the 28 days

The partner visa refusal lawyer counts the 28 days from the date of notification and records the last day for lodgement on the file. The lawyer does not count from the date on which the couple first read the letter, and does not assume a weekend or public holiday extends the time. The lawyer then sets an internal lodgement date well before the last day, so that a technical problem with the Tribunal's online system, a payment issue or an illness does not put the review at risk.

The deadline cannot be extended

The 28-day period cannot be extended. The Department's procedural instruction on merits review by the Tribunal records that an application made outside the prescribed time is not properly made and that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision. There is no discretion to accept a late application because the couple were overseas, were unwell, misunderstood the letter or were waiting for a representative. This is why a partner visa refusal lawyer lodges early and prepares the case afterwards.

Onshore Subclass 820/801 refusals: the applicant applies

For an onshore refusal of the combined Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application, the review applicant is the visa applicant. The applicant must be physically present in Australia when the review application is made. A partner visa refusal lawyer acting for an onshore couple therefore confirms where the applicant is before lodging, and advises against travel until the review application is in. The firm's Subclass 820 onshore partner visa page and the article on Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 compared explain how the two stages fit together.

Offshore Subclass 309 refusals: the applicant applies

For a refusal of an offshore Subclass 309 application, the review applicant is the visa applicant, not the Australian sponsor, under section 338(9) of the Migration Act 1958 and regulations 4.02(4)(saa) and 4.02(5)(raa) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The sponsor has no standing to apply. A partner visa refusal lawyer acting on an offshore refusal works with both partners, confirms the applicant's details and lodges in the applicant's name. There is no requirement that the applicant be in Australia when the review is lodged. Older guidance that the sponsor applies under subsection 338(5) is out of date for the Subclass 309. The firm's Subclass 309 offshore partner visa page explains that pathway.

Prospective marriage refusals

A different rule applies to a refused Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa where the applicant is outside Australia: the Australian sponsor is the person who applies for review. The partner visa refusal lawyer confirms the review applicant from the notification letter and the law in every case, rather than assuming.

Lodging in the wrong name

An application lodged by the wrong person is a real risk. If the Australian sponsor tries to lodge a review of a Subclass 309 refusal or of an onshore refusal in the sponsor's own name, the application may not be one the Tribunal can accept. If the error is found after the 28 days have passed, it may not be possible to correct it. A partner visa refusal lawyer prevents that mistake by checking the review applicant before lodgement.

Lodging the ART application and paying the fee

A partner visa refusal lawyer lodges the application for review with the Administrative Review Tribunal online, attaches the decision being reviewed, and pays the Tribunal fee, all before the 28-day deadline ends. As at October 2026, the Tribunal fee for review of a reviewable migration decision, which includes a partner visa refusal, is AUD 3,727 for fees paid on or after 1 July 2026.

What the lodgement involves

The review application identifies the review applicant, the decision under review and the date of notification. A copy of the decision is attached. The partner visa refusal lawyer also files the firm's details as representative so that the Tribunal sends correspondence to the firm. The application does not need to contain the full argument. Its purpose is to make a valid application within time. The detailed case follows.

The fee must be paid before the deadline

The Tribunal fee must be paid before the deadline for applying for review. A review application lodged without the fee, or with a fee paid after the deadline, risks not being a properly made application. A partner visa refusal lawyer therefore confirms with the couple, early in the first week, how the fee will be paid and by whom, so that payment is not left to the last day. The firm's guide to ART review and what to expect after your visa is refused explains the Tribunal process in general terms.

Fee reduction for financial hardship

The Tribunal may reduce the fee by 50% if paying the full fee has caused or is likely to cause the applicant financial hardship. A partner visa refusal lawyer considers whether a reduction request is appropriate, prepares it with the review application, and makes sure that asking for a reduction does not delay the lodgement itself. A reduction request should be supported by information about the applicant's financial position. The partner visa refusal lawyer never assumes a reduction will be granted, and plans for payment of the full fee if it is not.

The 50% refund

The Tribunal refunds 50% of the fee paid if the decision under review is set aside or varied, or if the matter is remitted to the Department. The refund is not automatic in every outcome. If the Tribunal affirms the refusal, no refund is given. A partner visa refusal lawyer explains the refund rule at the start, so the couple understand the real cost of review.

What the Department sends the Tribunal

Once a review application is made, the Department must give the Tribunal a statement about the decision and the documents it considers relevant. That material becomes part of the Tribunal file. The partner visa refusal lawyer obtains a copy of it, because it often contains information the couple have never seen, such as file notes, interview records or third party information. Reading it carefully is one of the most important tasks before any new evidence is prepared.

The bridging visa position after a partner visa refusal

A partner visa refusal lawyer checks the applicant's bridging visa in the first days after an onshore refusal, because the bridging visa granted with the partner application does not last indefinitely once the application is refused. For bridging visas granted on or after 19 November 2016, the Department's policy states that the bridging visa ceases 35 days after the refusal decision if no review is sought.

When a valid review is lodged

If a valid application for review is made, the bridging visa associated with the partner application generally continues. The Department's policy records that, for a Bridging visa A, Bridging visa B or Bridging visa C granted on or after 19 November 2016, the bridging visa ceases 35 days after the Tribunal's decision on the review, other than a decision to remit, or 35 days after a determination that the review application was not properly made. If the Tribunal remits the application, the bridging visa continues until a later ceasing event occurs. The firm's guide to bridging visas in Australia and the articles on the Bridging visa A and working while waiting for a Subclass 820 visa explain how bridging visas attach to applications.

Two different clocks

There is a practical trap here. The review deadline is 28 days after notification. The bridging visa ceasing period is 35 days after the decision. The two clocks start from different events. A partner visa refusal lawyer works from both dates and does not allow the 35-day period to be mistaken for extra time to apply for review. The review deadline is the one that cannot be missed.

Travel during review

An onshore applicant who leaves Australia on a Bridging visa A generally loses that bridging visa, and a Bridging visa B is needed to travel and return. Travel during review also carries other risks, including the requirement that the onshore applicant be in Australia when the review application is made, and, in most cases, at the time of grant. A partner visa refusal lawyer advises on any travel plan before the applicant books a flight. The article on the Bridging visa B explains how that visa works.

Applicants who were unlawful before lodging

Some applicants did not hold a substantive visa when the partner application was lodged and were granted a different kind of bridging visa. Their position after refusal can be more fragile, particularly if the refusal ground is Schedule 3. A partner visa refusal lawyer checks the exact visa held and its conditions, using the firm's own enquiries rather than asking the couple to find old grant notices. The firm obtains the applicant's visa history itself.

Review or a fresh application? How a partner visa refusal lawyer advises

A partner visa refusal lawyer advises on review and on a fresh application side by side, because for some couples a new application is possible and for others review is the only realistic pathway. The answer depends on where the applicant is, the visa history, the refusal ground and the sponsorship rules.

Onshore applicants and section 48

For an onshore applicant who does not hold a substantive visa, section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 generally applies after a refusal. A person subject to section 48 can only apply in Australia for a limited range of visas. The partner visa is one of them, but subparagraph 1124B(3)(e)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 prevents a person subject to section 48 from making a valid onshore partner application if they have already been refused a partner visa since last entering Australia. In practice, this means that for most onshore applicants whose partner visa has been refused, review is the only way to keep the onshore partner pathway open. The firm's article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains section 48 in more detail.

A partner visa refusal lawyer also checks whether other barriers apply, such as a no further stay condition. The article on the Subclass 820 visa and condition 8503 and the guide to moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa explain those barriers.

Offshore refusals

For an offshore Subclass 309 refusal, a new application is legally possible, but it is not always sensible. A new application requires a new government charge. As at October 2026, the Department's partner visa application charge is from AUD 11,710 for most applicants, and it covers both stages of the combined application. A lower charge applies to some eligible Pacific Island citizens, and the current figure should be checked on the Department's page. A new application also restarts processing, and it will be assessed by a delegate who can see the earlier refusal. A partner visa refusal lawyer compares that cost and delay with the Tribunal fee of AUD 3,727 and the prospects on review.

When the refusal ground cannot be fixed by a new application

Some refusal grounds travel with the couple. A finding of false or misleading information, or a sponsorship limitation that will still apply, does not disappear because a new application is lodged. A partner visa refusal lawyer explains which grounds a new application would face again, and which grounds review can address.

Doing both

In some offshore cases, a couple may pursue review and also consider a new application. That approach carries cost and risk, and it must be planned so that statements in one application do not contradict the other. A partner visa refusal lawyer advises on whether it makes sense in the particular case, and on the order in which steps are taken.

Deciding on new evidence for the Tribunal

A partner visa refusal lawyer decides on new evidence by asking one question for each refusal ground: what evidence would answer the delegate's specific finding? The Tribunal reconsiders the application on the evidence before it at the time of its decision, so new evidence can be decisive, but only if it addresses what actually went wrong.

Evidence that answers the finding

New evidence should be chosen because it answers a finding, not because it adds volume. If the delegate found that the couple did not share household responsibilities, the evidence should show who pays which bills, who does which tasks and how the household runs. If the delegate found that the couple were not known socially as a couple, the evidence should come from people who know them as a couple. A large bundle of photographs does not answer a finding about finances. The firm's partner visa document checklist and the Subclass 820 evidence checklist show the general categories of evidence.

The relationship statement

A partner visa has one relationship statement, in which the couple give their own account of the relationship. On review, an updated statement may be needed to explain events since lodgement or to answer a finding in the decision. The statement remains the couple's own evidence. The partner visa refusal lawyer reviews it against the decision record and the earlier forms, identifies gaps and inconsistencies, and the couple correct and confirm their own words. The firm's guide to the partner visa relationship statement explains how that statement works.

Form 888 statements and witnesses

Form 888 statements from friends and family are supporting statements. They are not statutory declarations. On review, the people who made them may also be asked to give oral evidence at the hearing. A partner visa refusal lawyer considers which witnesses can genuinely speak to the issues the delegate raised, and makes sure each statement reflects that person's own knowledge. The firm's articles on who can make a Form 888 and what it should say and Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explain their role.

Explaining inconsistencies

Where the decision rests on inconsistencies between the couple's accounts, or between the forms and the evidence, the review must deal with them directly. Some inconsistencies are errors in forms. Some are differences in memory. Some are real problems. A partner visa refusal lawyer identifies each one, asks the couple for the true position, and makes sure the explanation is put to the Tribunal clearly. Errors in personal particulars often start in Form 80, and changes after lodgement should have been notified using Form 1022.

Documents that were missing

Where the refusal rests on a missing police certificate, an incomplete health examination or a document that was never provided, the answer may be straightforward. The partner visa refusal lawyer confirms exactly what document is needed, from which authority, and makes sure it is current when it is given to the Tribunal.

What a partner visa refusal lawyer does between lodgement and the hearing

Between lodgement and the hearing, a partner visa refusal lawyer reads the Department's documents, prepares the new evidence, writes legal submissions on each refusal ground, prepares the couple and their witnesses to give evidence, and responds to any letters the Tribunal sends. This is the stage in which the case is won or lost.

Reading the Tribunal file

The partner visa refusal lawyer reads every document the Department gave the Tribunal. That material may show why the delegate formed a particular view. It may include file notes of a home visit, a record of a telephone call, or information from a third party. Knowing what the Tribunal will see is essential before the couple give evidence.

Written submissions

The partner visa refusal lawyer prepares written submissions that set out each criterion in issue, the evidence relevant to it and why the Tribunal should be satisfied that it is met. Good submissions are short and organised around the criteria, not around the couple's frustration with the Department. They point the Tribunal to the evidence that matters and deal honestly with the weak points.

Preparing the couple to give evidence

At a hearing, the Tribunal member usually asks the applicant and the sponsor about the relationship, often separately. The questions can cover how the couple met, how they live, how they manage money, who their friends are and what their plans are. A partner visa refusal lawyer explains how the hearing runs, what the member is likely to explore given the refusal grounds, and the importance of answering truthfully and in the person's own words. The lawyer does not script answers. Preparation is about understanding the process and the issues, not about rehearsing a story.

Witnesses

Where witnesses will give evidence, the partner visa refusal lawyer confirms that they are available, explains the process to them and provides their details to the Tribunal as required. A witness who knows the couple well and speaks plainly about what they have seen can carry real weight.

Interpreters at the hearing

The Tribunal arranges interpreters for hearings where a party needs one. The partner visa refusal lawyer tells the Tribunal in advance which language is needed so the hearing is not delayed.

Responding to the Tribunal's letters

The Tribunal may write before the hearing to ask for information or to put adverse information to the applicant for comment. Those letters have their own time limits. A partner visa refusal lawyer diarises each one and responds within time.

What a remittal means after a partner visa refusal

A remittal means the Tribunal has set aside the Department's refusal and sent the application back to the Department to reconsider, usually with a direction that one or more criteria are met. The Department then continues to process the application and decides the remaining criteria. A remittal is not the grant of a visa, but in many partner cases the Tribunal's findings resolve the central issue.

What happens after a remittal

After a remittal, the application returns to the Department. The Department may ask for updated documents, such as new police certificates, health examinations or evidence that the relationship is continuing, before making its decision. A partner visa refusal lawyer continues to act at this stage, because the remitted application still needs to be completed and the bridging visa position needs to be monitored.

Other outcomes

The Tribunal can also affirm the refusal, vary it, or set it aside and substitute its own decision. If the refusal is affirmed, further options are limited and depend on the reasons. The firm does not act in judicial review matters. A partner visa refusal lawyer explains the realistic options after an affirmed decision honestly, including any pathways outside Australia.

Tribunal decisions on remitted partner visa refusals

Tribunal decisions show that partner visa refusals are regularly remitted when the Tribunal has evidence that the delegate did not have, or reaches a different view on a criterion such as Schedule 3 or the sponsorship limitation. Every decision listed below was remitted, which means the Tribunal sent the application back to the Department to reconsider. The descriptions record only the issues reported in each decision's headnote. The headnotes do not state the nationality of the parties.

Evidence put to the Tribunal for the first time

• Vu (Migration) [2023] AATA 2881, Subclass 820: the reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, limited documentary evidence provided to the Department, extensive documentary evidence and submissions provided to the Tribunal, a valid marriage, and a relationship that had ceased amicably.
• Bateman (Migration) [2019] AATA 394, Subclass 820: the reported issues were a genuine de facto relationship, credible witnesses, and the Tribunal having more information available to it than was available to the delegate.
• Bell (Migration) [2023] AATA 3086, Subclass 309: the reported issues were a genuine and continuing spousal relationship, a valid marriage in the home country, extensive additional evidence provided to the Tribunal, and disruption by COVID travel restrictions.
• Manalo (Migration) [2024] AATA 1927, Subclass 820: the reported issues were a sponsorship form and other requested material not provided to the Department, COVID restrictions and access issues, prehearing, oral and witness evidence, and departmental policy.

Documents that were missing at the time of decision

• Fouracres (Migration) [2024] AATA 61, Subclass 820: the reported issues were criminal history, an AFP certificate that expired before the visa was finalised, a new certificate provided to the Tribunal, and a decision made without a hearing being necessary.
• Freeland (Migration) [2024] AATA 1083, Subclass 820: the reported issues were the health requirements, evidence of the required examination provided to the Tribunal, and a decision made without a hearing being necessary.
• Bernhardt (Migration) [2019] AATA 2462, Subclass 820: the reported issues were information not provided relating to character and criminal history, and the applicant having since provided the relevant police certificates.

Schedule 3 and compelling reasons

• Sandhu (Migration) [2018] AATA 1483, Subclass 820: the reported issues were whether compelling reasons existed for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria, the length of the relationship, and the difficulty of relocating offshore while the application was processed.
• Naidu (Migration) [2023] AATA 1830, Subclass 820: the reported issues were a Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal, compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria, a child born of the relationship, and a long-standing relationship.

The sponsorship limitation

• Dang (Migration) [2024] AATA 137, Subclass 820: the reported issues were the sponsorship limit, an application made within 5 years of a previous sponsorship, the 5 years having now passed, and a decision made without a hearing being necessary.
• Rogers (Migration) [2020] AATA 4743, Subclass 309: the reported issues were sponsorship limitations, 5 years not having lapsed since the earlier visa application, 5 years elapsing during the review process, and a genuine and continuing relationship.

False or misleading information

• Pham (Migration) [2021] AATA 4350, Subclass 820: the reported issues were false or misleading information in a previous visitor visa application, an answer of "married" when the person was separated at the time and later divorced, and a credible witness and evidence.

Oral evidence at the hearing

• KAUR (Migration) [2019] AATA 3936, Subclass 820: the reported issues were a genuine spousal relationship, seven years of cohabitation, the benefit of oral evidence from the applicant and sponsor separately, and anonymous allegations.

What these decisions show and do not show

These decisions show that a refusal is not the final word, and that the Tribunal decides the matter on the evidence before it. Several of them were remitted after documents or evidence were provided to the Tribunal that the Department did not have. Others turned on time passing during the review, as in the sponsorship limitation cases, or on the Tribunal's own view of compelling reasons. They do not mean that any particular refusal will be remitted. Each case depends on its own facts, and each was decided on the evidence in that matter. What they do show is the value of a review that answers the actual refusal grounds with real evidence.

Mistakes after a refusal that a partner visa refusal lawyer prevents

A partner visa refusal lawyer prevents the mistakes that most often cost couples their review rights or weaken the review: lodging late, lodging in the wrong name, not paying the fee in time, travelling at the wrong moment, and sending the Tribunal evidence that does not answer the refusal grounds.

Waiting for the Department to change its mind

Some couples write to the Department asking it to reconsider the refusal. The Department generally has no power to reopen a refused application once the decision is made. Waiting for a reply uses up the 28 days. The right step is review, lodged within time.

Treating the 35-day bridging visa period as review time

As explained above, the bridging visa ceasing period and the review deadline run from different dates and are different lengths. Couples who confuse them risk losing review rights altogether.

Lodging an application that cannot be accepted

An onshore applicant who leaves Australia before lodging, a sponsor who lodges a Subclass 309 review in the sponsor's own name, or a review lodged without the fee, can each produce an application that is not properly made. A partner visa refusal lawyer prevents this by checking every element before submission.

Sending everything and explaining nothing

Uploading hundreds of pages with no explanation rarely helps. The Tribunal member needs to understand what each document proves and which finding it answers. A partner visa refusal lawyer organises the evidence and the submissions around the criteria in issue.

Giving inconsistent evidence

A couple who gives the Tribunal a different account from the one in the application, without explaining why, creates a new problem. A partner visa refusal lawyer compares the new evidence with the old before anything is filed.

Choosing a lawyer too late

Couples sometimes spend most of the 28 days comparing representatives. It is sensible to choose carefully, and the firm's guides on how to choose a partner visa lawyer in Australia, when you need a visa appeal lawyer and migration agents and immigration lawyers compared can help. But the choice should be made within days, not weeks.

What to send a partner visa refusal lawyer on the first day

On the first day, a couple should send a partner visa refusal lawyer the refusal notification, the full decision record, and any recent letters from the Department, such as a section 56 request or a section 57 letter, together with the couple's responses. With those documents, the lawyer can confirm the deadline, the review applicant and the refusal grounds in the first consultation.

What the couple does not need to find

The couple does not need to search for old bridging visa grant notices or old application forms. The firm obtains the applicant's visa history itself. If the couple can give the firm access to the documents lodged with the partner application, that helps, but the first priority is the refusal decision and its date.

What the first consultation covers

In the first consultation, the partner visa refusal lawyer confirms the last day to apply for review, the person who must apply, the grounds of refusal, the bridging visa position, whether review or a fresh application is the better course, and what evidence will be needed. Consultations are held by video. The firm's guide to booking an immigration lawyer consultation explains what to expect.

How fees work

My Migration Lawyers charges fixed fees under a written costs agreement, so the couple know the professional cost of the review before work starts. The Tribunal fee is a separate government charge. The firm's articles on fixed fee immigration lawyers and how much an immigration lawyer costs in Australia explain how fixed fees are structured.

How My Migration Lawyers acts as your partner visa refusal lawyer

My Migration Lawyers acts as a partner visa refusal lawyer for couples across Australia, from the day the refusal arrives to the Tribunal's decision and any remitted processing that follows. The firm deals with complex cases, acts in many partner visa refusal matters of this exact type, and is capable of handling reviews that turn on genuine relationship findings, Schedule 3, false or misleading information findings, the sponsorship limitation and missing documents.

On a refused partner visa, the firm's work follows a set order.

• Deadline and applicant check. On the first day, the firm reads the notification, records the date of notification, calculates the last day to apply under subsection 347(3), and confirms whether the applicant or the Australian sponsor must apply.
• Decision record review. The firm reads the decision record and the Department's earlier correspondence, and lists every criterion the delegate found was not met, with the finding and evidence behind each one.
• Bridging visa check. For onshore applicants, the firm confirms the bridging visa held and its ceasing date, and advises on travel and work.
• Review or fresh application. The firm advises whether review, a fresh application or both is the right course, taking into account section 48, the sponsorship limitation and the government charges.
• Lodgement. The firm lodges the Tribunal application within time, arranges payment of the AUD 3,727 fee, and prepares any fee reduction request.
• Evidence and submissions. The firm reads the Tribunal file, identifies what evidence answers each finding, reviews the couple's relationship statement and Form 888 statements for gaps and inconsistencies, and prepares written submissions on each criterion.
• Hearing preparation. The firm explains the hearing process to the couple and their witnesses and appears with them at the hearing.
• After the decision. If the matter is remitted, the firm continues to act while the Department completes processing.

Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer, leads the firm's partner visa practice. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers, learn about Weiwei Zhang, and see how the firm approaches matters as partner visa lawyers. The firm also explains what a partner visa lawyer in Australia does, when an immigration lawyer is needed for a partner visa and its wider visa refusals practice.

Consultations are held by video, and the firm acts for clients of its partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta, and of its immigration lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta.

The firm cannot promise any outcome. What it can do is make sure the review is lodged in time, by the right person, with the right fee, and that the Tribunal receives evidence and submissions that answer the reasons for refusal. If your partner visa has just been refused and the 28 days have not ended, the time to speak with a partner visa refusal lawyer is now.

Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your refusal decision, review deadline and options reviewed. You can also call 1300 040 300.