Partner Visa Refusal Reasons

The partner visa refusal reasons that decide what happens next are not the general reasons people read about online. They are the specific findings written in your decision record. Every refusal letter identifies the criterion the case officer found was not met, and the partner visa refusal reasons in that record tell you exactly what evidence or argument is now needed.

This guide is written for people who hold a partner visa refusal decision and still have time to act. It works through each of the partner visa refusal reasons as it appears in a decision record: what the decision says, what that finding means in law, and how it is usually answered on review. It covers onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 refusals and offshore Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 refusals. For an overview of why applications fail, see our article on why partner visas get refused and our list of the most common reasons Subclass 820 partner visas are refused. This article is different. It is a guide to the wording of the decision itself.

If you are reading this with a refusal letter in front of you, read the review section of the letter first. The deadline to seek review is short and strictly applied. Our partner visa refusals service page explains how My Migration Lawyers acts on those matters.

What are the most common partner visa refusal reasons?

The most common of the partner visa refusal reasons is a finding that the case officer was not satisfied the couple are in a genuine and continuing relationship. In published Tribunal decisions remitting partner visa refusals, the genuine relationship finding is the issue that appears more often than any other.

The other partner visa refusal reasons that appear regularly in decision records are:

• the de facto relationship did not exist for the required period before the application, or the marriage was not valid;
• the applicant did not hold a substantive visa when applying and the Schedule 3 criteria were not met or waived;
• the sponsorship was not approved, or the sponsor was subject to a sponsorship limitation;
• the sponsor withdrew the sponsorship or the relationship ended;
• false or misleading information or a bogus document was given, so public interest criterion (PIC) 4020 was not met;
• the applicant's identity was not established;
• the health requirement was not met, or health examinations were not completed;
• the character requirement was not met, or police certificates were not provided;
• the applicant did not respond to a section 56 request for information or a section 57 natural justice letter; and
• a secondary applicant, such as a child, did not meet the dependency or other criteria.

Each of these partner visa refusal reasons has its own legal test, its own evidence and its own answer on review. Some are fixed by producing a document that was missing. Others require a full rebuilding of the relationship evidence. A small number cannot be fixed on review at all. The rest of this guide takes each one in turn. Our complete guide to partner visas in Australia explains the underlying visa requirements if you need the wider picture.

How to read a partner visa decision record

A partner visa decision record has three parts that matter: the criteria the case officer found were not met, the findings of fact that led to that conclusion, and the evidence the officer considered. The partner visa refusal reasons are found by reading all three together, not by reading the summary on the first page.

The criteria not met

The decision record names the clause or criterion that was not satisfied. For an onshore application, that is usually a clause in Subclass 820 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, for example the time of application criteria in clause 820.211 or the time of decision criteria in clause 820.221. For an offshore application, the equivalent clauses are in Subclass 309. A public interest criterion, such as PIC 4020, PIC 4007 or the character criterion, may also be cited. The cited criterion defines the issue for review.

Some decisions cite more than one criterion. A refusal may find, for example, that the relationship is not genuine and that PIC 4020 is not met. Each of the partner visa refusal reasons cited must be answered, because the visa cannot be granted if even one criterion remains unmet.

The findings of fact

The findings section explains why the officer reached the conclusion. It may say that joint financial evidence was limited, that the couple gave inconsistent accounts of how they met, that the officer gave little weight to Form 888 statements, or that information in an earlier visa application contradicted the current one. These findings are the real partner visa refusal reasons, because they show what the officer did not accept.

Read each finding and ask a simple question: is this finding about missing evidence, about inconsistent evidence, about the law, or about credibility? The answer decides the strategy. Missing evidence can usually be supplied. Inconsistent evidence must be explained. A legal error must be argued. A credibility finding needs careful work, often including oral evidence at a hearing.

The evidence considered

The decision record usually lists the documents the officer had. Compare that list with what was actually lodged. Sometimes a document was uploaded but not considered. Sometimes the officer relied on something the applicant has never seen, such as information from an earlier application. Our article on what to expect in an ART review after a visa refusal explains how the Tribunal receives the Department's file.

The review rights paragraph

The last part of the decision record explains review rights. For an onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 refusal, the applicant in Australia applies to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). For a Subclass 309 refusal, the visa applicant applies for review in their own name, even from outside Australia, under section 338(9) of the Migration Act 1958 and regulation 4.02(4)(saa) and 4.02(5)(raa) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The deadline runs from notification, is short, and cannot be extended. The Tribunal has no power to accept a late application. Our guide to partner visa refused appeal options explains the choices, and our visa refusals service page explains the firm's ART work.

Where My Migration Lawyers acts on partner visa refusals

My Migration Lawyers acts on partner visa refusals for couples throughout Australia, and every consultation is conducted by video. Couples in New South Wales can read about our partner visa lawyers in Sydney and our partner visa lawyers in Parramatta. In Victoria and Queensland, the firm acts through our partner visa lawyers in Melbourne, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The firm also acts for couples through our partner visa lawyers in Perth, Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart. The partner visa refusal reasons are the same wherever the couple lives, and so is the Tribunal's approach to them. For an offshore refusal, the client is the Australian sponsor, wherever in Australia the sponsor lives.

Refusal reason: not satisfied the relationship is genuine and continuing

This is the most common of all partner visa refusal reasons. It means the case officer was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, that the relationship is genuine and continuing, and, depending on the relationship, that they live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

What the decision says

The decision usually states that the officer is not satisfied the applicant is the spouse of the sponsor under section 5F of the Migration Act, or the de facto partner of the sponsor under section 5CB. It then refers to regulation 1.15A (for spouses) or regulation 1.09A (for de facto partners), which require the decision maker to consider all the circumstances of the relationship under four aspects: the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship, and the nature of the persons' commitment to each other.

What it means

A genuine relationship finding is an overall judgement. The officer weighs the evidence under all four aspects. A refusal on this ground usually means one of three things. The evidence under one or more aspects was thin. The accounts given by the applicant and the sponsor were inconsistent with each other or with earlier records. Or the officer had concerns from outside the application, such as an allegation or information from a previous visa application.

The four aspects are never separate tests that each must be passed. A weak financial aspect does not by itself require refusal. But a decision record that criticises every aspect signals that the whole relationship case needs to be rebuilt, not patched.

How it is answered

The genuine relationship finding is answered with evidence that meets each concern the officer raised, presented in a coherent way. That usually means:

• a detailed relationship statement from each partner, consistent with each other and with every earlier document;
• financial evidence such as joint accounts, shared expenses and financial support over time;
• household evidence such as a lease, shared bills and correspondence at the same address;
• social evidence such as photographs over time, joint travel, invitations and Form 888 statements from people who know the couple; and
• commitment evidence such as communication during periods apart, future plans and knowledge of each other's circumstances.

Our guides to partner visa relationship evidence, preparing evidence of a genuine relationship and writing a partner visa relationship statement explain what each category looks like. Our articles on who can make a Form 888 and what it should say and Form 888 example answers and common mistakes deal with supporting statements.

Allegations and unsupported concerns

Sometimes the genuine relationship finding rests on an allegation rather than on the couple's own evidence. In Lakhwinder Singh (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1558, a matter involving unsubstantiated allegations of fake marriage, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration. Where partner visa refusal reasons rely on an allegation, the review case usually tests whether the allegation is supported by evidence and answers it directly with the couple's own evidence and oral evidence at the hearing.

Same-sex relationships

The genuine relationship test applies in the same way to every couple. Same-sex couples sometimes face particular evidence issues, such as limited public social evidence in some home countries. Our page on the LGBTI partner visa explains how those issues are addressed.

Refusal reason: the de facto relationship did not meet the 12-month requirement

This refusal reason means the officer found that the couple had not been in a de facto relationship for at least 12 months immediately before the application, and that no exception applied. It appears only in de facto applications, never in applications by married spouses.

What the decision says

The decision states that the applicant was not the de facto partner of the sponsor for the required period before the date of application, with reference to regulation 1.09A. It may also find that the couple were not in a de facto relationship at all at the time of application, which is a separate and more serious finding.

What it means

The Regulations allow the 12-month requirement to be met in other ways. The main exception is where the relationship is registered under a law of an Australian state or territory before the application is decided. There is also a limited exception for compelling and compassionate circumstances. Our article on the de facto partner visa and the 12-month rule and our answer to whether you really need 12 months of de facto relationship explain these exceptions.

Many partner visa refusal reasons in this category come from a dispute about when the relationship began, or about whether periods of living apart broke the relationship. Ryu (Migration) [2026] ARTA 840, where the issues included a registered relationship and periods of living separately, is an example of a matter remitted by the Tribunal where both registration and periods of living separately were in issue.

How it is answered

The answer depends on which part of the finding is wrong. If the relationship had in fact existed for 12 months, the answer is evidence that fixes the start date: the first period of living together, joint lease records, messages, and statements from people who saw the relationship develop. If the couple have since registered their relationship, or married, the change is put before the Tribunal. In 2306750 (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1754, where the issues included whether the couple were de facto partners at the time of application and their valid marriage, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration. The Tribunal considers the evidence before it when it decides, so a registration or a marriage that happened after the refusal can matter on review, depending on the criterion in issue.

Where the couple lived apart for periods, the review case explains why: work, study, family obligations or visa restrictions. The law does not require a couple to live together every day. It requires that they do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

Partner visa refusal reasons about the marriage: not valid or not recognised

This refusal reason means the officer was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor were in a married relationship that is valid and recognised in Australia. It applies where the applicant relies on being the sponsor's spouse under section 5F.

What the decision says

The decision usually states that the officer is not satisfied the applicant and the sponsor are in a married relationship, because the marriage was not valid under Australian law, was not recognised, or was not proven by acceptable evidence. Common examples are a marriage certificate that could not be verified, a marriage that took place before a previous marriage was formally ended, or a religious ceremony that was not registered as a legal marriage.

What it means

A married relationship requires a valid marriage. A ceremony that has cultural or religious meaning but is not a legally valid marriage does not make the couple spouses for migration purposes. A marriage entered into while either party was still married to someone else is generally not valid in Australia. Among the partner visa refusal reasons, this one is often discovered late, because couples do not realise that a ceremony was not registered or that a divorce was not finalised.

How it is answered

Where the partner visa refusal reasons concern the marriage, the first question is whether the couple can rely on a de facto relationship instead. A couple whose marriage is not valid may still be de facto partners, if the evidence supports that relationship and the de facto requirements are met. The second question is whether the defect has since been fixed, for example by a valid marriage after the divorce was finalised. The Tribunal considers the evidence before it at the time of its decision. Published remittals include matters in which the couple were validly married by the time of review, as in 2306750 (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1754.

Where the officer doubted the authenticity of the marriage certificate, the answer is verification evidence. In Faruque (Migration) [2024] AATA 3889, where the issues included whether a marriage certificate was a bogus document, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration. That decision also shows how a doubt about a document can turn a relationship question into a PIC 4020 question, which is dealt with below.

Refusal reason: Schedule 3 criteria not met

This refusal reason means the applicant did not hold a substantive visa when the onshore partner visa application was made, and the case officer found that the Schedule 3 criteria were not met and that there were no compelling reasons for not applying them. It applies to onshore Subclass 820 applications only.

What the decision says

The decision refers to subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii), which requires an applicant who does not hold a substantive visa at the time of application to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria. It then states which criterion was not met and why the officer did not accept that compelling reasons existed.

What it means

Where Schedule 3 appears among the partner visa refusal reasons, the decision is usually about criterion 3001, criterion 3004, or both. Criterion 3001 requires the application to be made within a short period after the applicant last held a substantive visa. Criterion 3003 is a legacy criterion for people who have been unlawful since before 1 September 1994 and rarely matters today. Criterion 3004 applies to people who ceased to hold a substantive visa, or entered unlawfully, on or after 1 September 1994. Among other things, it requires that the reasons for being unlawful were beyond the applicant's control, that there are compelling reasons to grant the visa, that the applicant substantially complied with the conditions of their last visa, and that they would have been entitled to the visa had they applied immediately before becoming unlawful.

Of all the partner visa refusal reasons, this one turns most heavily on whether compelling reasons exist. Compelling reasons are not defined in the Regulations. Department policy says that a genuine relationship and the hardship of separation are not, by themselves, compelling reasons, because every partner applicant has a relationship. Circumstances beyond the applicant's control, such as serious illness, are more readily accepted.

How it is answered

Schedule 3 partner visa refusal reasons are answered with a compelling reasons case built on current evidence. The decision maker must consider all of the applicant's circumstances up to the time of decision. The Full Federal Court said so in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32. Circumstances that arise after lodgement, such as the birth of a child, therefore count, and on review the Tribunal considers compelling reasons afresh on the evidence before it. Matters the Tribunal has treated as compelling in published remittal decisions include Australian citizen children of the relationship, a pregnant sponsor, the sponsor's serious illness and dependence on the applicant, care of the sponsor's children, and the circumstances in which the visa lapsed.

Our articles on the Schedule 3 criteria for people applying when unlawful and on the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver explain the law, and our Schedule 3 waiver service page explains how the firm prepares compelling reasons cases. Our partner visa refusals service page explains how the firm acts where Schedule 3 is one of the partner visa refusal reasons in the decision.

When there is no refusal at all: invalid applications, condition 8503 and section 48

An invalid application is not one of the partner visa refusal reasons, because an invalid application is never decided on its merits. The Department does not refuse it. It tells the applicant that the application is not valid. There is no decision record with findings, and there is usually no right to ART review.

Condition 8503 (No Further Stay)

Condition 8503 on a visitor or other visa generally prevents a valid onshore partner visa application unless the condition is waived first. An application lodged while the condition applies, without a waiver, is generally invalid. Our article on applying for a Subclass 820 visa with condition 8503 explains the condition and the waiver, and our guide to moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa in Australia sets out the checks a visitor should make.

Section 48 and the extra validity requirements

Section 48 of the Migration Act applies to a person in Australia who does not hold a substantive visa and who has had a visa refused or cancelled since last entering Australia. The Partner class remains available to that person. However, Schedule 1 item 1124B(3)(e) adds validity requirements for a section 48 affected applicant. The applicant must not have been refused a partner visa since last entering Australia. The sponsor's completed and signed sponsorship form must be lodged with the application. Two statutory declarations must also be lodged, each made by an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen who is not the partner, declaring that the couple are in a married or de facto relationship, and each made within a short period before the application. If any of these is missing, the application is invalid.

Leaving Australia on a bridging visa and returning does not reset section 48. A person who has already had an onshore partner visa refused since last entering Australia cannot simply lodge another onshore partner application. The review route, or an offshore Subclass 309 application, is usually the path that remains. Our article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains how section 48 interacts with partner visas.

Why the difference matters

A refusal can be reviewed. An invalid application generally cannot. An invalid application also does not attract a bridging visa, so a person who believed they were protected may be unlawful. Before any of the partner visa refusal reasons are analysed, the first step is to confirm that a valid application was made and that what was received is in fact a refusal decision with review rights.

Partner visa refusal reasons about the sponsor: sponsorship not approved or limited

This refusal reason means the visa was refused because the sponsor could not sponsor the applicant, either because the sponsorship was not approved or because a sponsorship limitation applied. Partner visas cannot be granted without an approved sponsor.

What the decision says

The decision may refer to the sponsorship limitation in regulation 1.20J. In general terms, that regulation limits how many partners a person can sponsor and how soon a person can sponsor again after an earlier partner sponsorship, or after they were themselves sponsored as a partner, unless compelling circumstances affect the sponsor. The decision may also refer to the sponsor's character or to other sponsorship requirements.

What it means

A sponsorship limitation finding is not a finding about the relationship. It is one of the partner visa refusal reasons that concerns the sponsor alone. The relationship may be accepted as genuine and the visa still refused because the sponsor was not eligible to sponsor. This is one of the partner visa refusal reasons where the facts are usually not in dispute and the argument is about compelling circumstances.

How it is answered

The review case usually focuses on whether compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor exist, such as the existence of children, the length of the relationship, or the circumstances of the earlier sponsorship. In Dang (Migration) [2024] AATA 137, where the issues included the sponsorship limitation, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration. Our page on partner visa sponsorship limitations and our article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explain the rules in detail.

Refusal reason: the sponsor withdrew or the relationship ended

This refusal reason means the relationship ended, or the sponsor withdrew their sponsorship, before the visa was decided, and none of the special provisions that allow grant after a relationship ends applied. It is one of the partner visa refusal reasons that can apply at either the Subclass 820 stage or the Subclass 801 stage.

What the decision says

The decision states that the applicant is no longer the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor, or that there is no approved sponsorship, and that the applicant does not meet clause 820.221(2) or 820.221(3), or the equivalent provisions at the permanent stage in clause 801.221(5) or 801.221(6).

What it means

Clause 820.221 allows the Subclass 820 visa to be granted after the relationship ends in limited cases. The first is where the sponsor has died, the applicant would have continued the relationship, and the applicant has close business, cultural or personal ties in Australia. The second is where the relationship has ended and the applicant, or a dependent child, suffered family violence committed by the sponsor. The third is where the applicant has custody, joint custody or access to a child of the sponsor, or Family Law Act orders for that child, or the sponsor has child maintenance obligations. In each case, the relationship must have been genuine until it ended.

Section 104 of the Migration Act requires an applicant to notify the Department of changes in circumstances, including the end of the relationship, usually by Form 1022.

How it is answered

If a special provision applies, the review case proves two things: that the provision applies, and that the relationship was genuine until it ended. For family violence, the evidence must meet Division 1.5 of the Regulations. Claims are either judicially determined, for example by a final protection order made after the other party had the chance to respond, or non-judicially determined, by a statutory declaration from the applicant together with prescribed evidence from competent people. Our family violence partner visa page explains how those claims are prepared. Our article on what happens when a Subclass 820 relationship breaks down explains the general position.

If no special provision applies, review is unlikely to change the result where these are the only partner visa refusal reasons, and other visa options need to be assessed. Honest advice on that point is part of a proper review assessment.

PIC 4020 partner visa refusal reasons: false or misleading information and bogus documents

This refusal reason means the case officer found that the applicant gave, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, in this application or in a recent earlier one. It is among the most serious partner visa refusal reasons, because a PIC 4020 refusal can also lead to an exclusion period that affects future visa applications.

What the decision says

The decision refers to public interest criterion 4020 in Schedule 4 to the Regulations. It identifies the document or information concerned, explains why the officer considers it bogus, false or misleading, and states whether the officer considered waiving the criterion.

What it means

PIC 4020 findings in partner visa matters often involve undeclared earlier relationships or marriages, inconsistent marital status across applications, inconsistent travel or employment histories, and documents the Department could not verify. A waiver is possible where there are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.

Three remitted decisions show the range. TRUONG (Migration) [2024] AATA 680 concerned false or misleading information about marital status. PALASIT (MIGRATION) [2026] ARTA 1914 is recorded under "previous relationship not declared; discretion to waive criterion". Faruque (Migration) [2024] AATA 3889 is recorded under "marriage certificate not a bogus document". In each, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration.

How it is answered

PIC 4020 partner visa refusal reasons are answered on two levels. The first is whether the information was in fact false or misleading in a material particular, or whether the document was in fact bogus. An error, a translation problem, or a misunderstanding of a form question may be explained with evidence. The second is whether the criterion should be waived, which requires evidence of the compelling or compassionate circumstances, often focused on the Australian sponsor and any children.

Honesty is essential when answering partner visa refusal reasons of this kind. A review case that repeats or adds to an inaccuracy makes the position worse. Our guide to completing Form 80 without errors explains why personal particulars must match across every application.

Refusal reason: identity not established

This refusal reason means the case officer was not satisfied of the applicant's identity, usually because identity documents were inconsistent, could not be verified, or conflicted with information in earlier applications. Identity is a threshold issue, and identity partner visa refusal reasons often overlap with PIC 4020. A visa cannot be granted to a person whose identity has not been established.

What the decision says

The decision usually identifies the documents relied on, such as passports, birth certificates and national identity cards, and the inconsistencies the officer found, for example different dates of birth, different name spellings, or more than one version of the same document.

What it means

Identity concerns are common partner visa refusal reasons where civil registration systems in the home country allow late registration or reissue of documents. They may overlap with PIC 4020 if the officer considers a document bogus. In 2305833 (MIGRATION) [2026] ARTA 1686, where the issues included identity and multiple birth certificates, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration.

How it is answered

The answer is a clear explanation, supported by evidence, of why the documents differ: how and when each document was issued, which authority issued it, and why a later version exists. Evidence from the issuing authority, consistent records over time, and an honest explanation of any earlier error are usually central. Identity matters that also raise PIC 4020 need careful handling, because the explanation must be consistent with everything the applicant has said before.

Refusal reason: health requirement not met

This refusal reason means the applicant did not meet public interest criterion 4007, the health requirement for partner visas, or did not complete the health examinations the Department requested. It is one of the partner visa refusal reasons that can sometimes be resolved simply by completing what was outstanding.

What the decision says

The decision either states that health examinations were not completed by the required time, or states that the Department's medical officer assessed the applicant as not meeting the health requirement, and that the officer did not waive the criterion.

What it means

A refusal for failing to complete health examinations is procedural. A refusal based on a medical officer's assessment is substantive. PIC 4007 allows a waiver for partner visas in some cases, which requires the decision maker to consider whether granting the visa would be unlikely to result in undue cost to the Australian community or undue prejudice to access to health care, and the circumstances of the applicant and the sponsor.

How it is answered

Where examinations were not done, they are completed and the results are put before the Tribunal. In Dayao (Migration) [2023] AATA 1900, where the issues included whether the health requirements had been finalised, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration. Where the health requirement is substantively not met, the review case usually addresses the waiver: the circumstances of the sponsor and any children, the applicant's treatment and support, and the effect of refusal on the Australian family.

Refusal reason: character requirement not met or police certificates missing

This refusal reason means the applicant did not satisfy the character requirements, either because the officer formed concerns about the applicant's criminal record or conduct, or because the required police certificates were not provided. It covers both a failure to provide documents and a substantive character decision.

What the decision says

Where the problem is documents, the decision states that police certificates were not provided for each country where the applicant lived for the required period, or that a certificate expired before the decision. Where the problem is substantive, the decision may refer to section 501 of the Migration Act and the character test.

What it means

Missing or expired police certificates are among the most avoidable partner visa refusal reasons. Certificates have a limited validity period, and a long processing time can mean a certificate expires before the visa is decided. A substantive character refusal under section 501 is different. It involves a separate legal framework, separate review rights and often a different Tribunal pathway. Our visa cancellations page explains the firm's character work.

How it is answered

Where the issue is a missing or expired certificate, current certificates are obtained and put before the Tribunal. In Rosito (Migration) [2023] AATA 4229, where the issues included the character requirement and an AFP Digital Certificate, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration. Where the issue is a substantive section 501 decision, the review case requires specific advice on the character framework, the evidence of rehabilitation and the interests of the Australian family.

Refusal reason: no response to a section 56 request or a natural justice letter

This refusal reason means the officer asked for information or invited a response to adverse information, the applicant did not respond, or did not respond fully, and the officer decided the application on the material available. It often appears alongside a genuine relationship finding.

What the decision says

The decision usually records that a request under section 56 of the Migration Act, or an invitation to comment under section 57, was sent, that no response was received by the deadline, and that the officer proceeded to decide the application. Section 57 requires the Department to give the applicant particulars of certain adverse information and invite comment before relying on it.

What it means

A failure to respond is not itself a criterion. It is the reason the evidence was incomplete. The underlying finding, such as the genuine relationship finding or a PIC 4020 finding, is what must be answered. Requests often go unanswered because they were sent to an old email address, to a former representative, or to an ImmiAccount the applicant no longer checks. Our guide to creating and managing an ImmiAccount and our article on Form 956 and 956A for appointing a representative explain how correspondence is directed.

How it is answered

On review, the applicant provides the information that was not provided and answers the adverse information directly. Our guides to responding to a section 56 request for more information and responding to a section 57 natural justice letter for a partner visa show what a complete response includes. Where the request was never received, that fact and the reason for it should be explained to the Tribunal with evidence.

Refusal reason: a secondary applicant did not meet the criteria

This refusal reason means that a person included in the application as a secondary applicant, usually a child, did not meet the criteria that apply to secondary applicants, even if the main applicant did. It can produce a split decision, where the main applicant is granted and the secondary applicant is refused, or it can affect the whole application.

What the decision says

The decision usually states that the secondary applicant was not a dependent child of the applicant, or did not meet the health, character or other public interest criteria, or that the consent of a person with parental responsibility was not provided.

What it means

Dependency is assessed under the definitions in the Regulations. For an older child, the officer must be satisfied the child is wholly or substantially reliant on the applicant for basic needs, or is incapacitated for work. Consent and custody questions arise where the other parent of the child is not part of the application.

How it is answered

The answer is evidence of dependency, custody, consent or the outstanding public interest criterion. Partner visa refusal reasons involving children also engage the best interests of the child, which are relevant to many of the discretionary questions in a partner visa decision. This point should be confirmed on the individual facts, because secondary applicant rules depend on the child's age and circumstances.

Which partner visa refusal reasons can be fixed on review?

Many partner visa refusal reasons can be addressed on review, because the Administrative Review Tribunal decides on the evidence before it at the time of its decision, not on the evidence the Department had. New evidence, updated documents and oral evidence at a hearing can all be considered.

What the Tribunal can do

Under section 349(2) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal may affirm the decision, vary it, set it aside and substitute a new decision, or remit the matter to the Department for reconsideration with directions permitted by the Regulations. For a visa application, a common direction is that the applicant is taken to satisfy a specified criterion. The Department then considers the remaining criteria. Every case cited in this article is a decision in which the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration. The Tribunal must give a written statement of its decision and reasons under section 368.

Partner visa refusal reasons that are usually fixable

Procedural partner visa refusal reasons, such as health examinations not completed, police certificates missing or expired, and information not provided in response to a section 56 request, are often fixable on review, as the Dayao and Rosito decisions referred to above illustrate. Genuine relationship findings are often answerable where the original evidence was thin, but they require careful preparation and consistent oral evidence.

Partner visa refusal reasons that are harder to fix

Some partner visa refusal reasons are harder to address. A relationship that ended without any special provision applying cannot be revived on review. A PIC 4020 finding about information that was in fact false requires a waiver case, not a denial. A sponsorship limitation requires compelling circumstances. A Schedule 3 refusal requires a persuasive compelling reasons case. Our article on visa appeal lawyers and when you need one explains what representation involves.

The deadline

The deadline to apply to the Tribunal runs from notification of the decision. It is short and strictly applied. It cannot be extended, and the Tribunal has no power to accept a late application. A shorter period applies to people in immigration detention. While a valid review application is pending, a person who held a Bridging Visa A linked to the refused application generally keeps a bridging visa. Leaving Australia or lodging another application without advice can cause serious problems. Our guide to preparing for urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to have ready.

After the Tribunal

If the Tribunal affirms the refusal, judicial review is available only for jurisdictional error, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, and time limits apply. Our judicial review page explains that process.

Mistakes people make when responding to partner visa refusal reasons

The most common mistake is to answer the refusal in general terms instead of answering each finding the officer made. A review case that simply resubmits the original evidence, with more photographs, rarely deals with the partner visa refusal reasons actually stated in the decision.

Other common mistakes include:

• reading only the first page of the decision and missing a second criterion, such as PIC 4020, cited later in the record;
• giving new statements that contradict earlier statements, interviews or forms, which creates a fresh credibility problem;
• treating the hardship of separation as a compelling reason by itself, when Department policy says it is not;
• lodging a new onshore partner application after an onshore partner refusal, when section 48 makes it invalid;
• leaving Australia during the review, which can end the bridging visa and affect the review; and
• waiting until close to the deadline to seek advice, which leaves little time to read the record and plan.

Each of these mistakes is avoidable, and each makes the partner visa refusal reasons in the decision harder to answer. Our article on getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer explains how an independent review of a decision works, and our guide to hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application explains how a firm takes over a matter part way through.

Choosing who acts on partner visa refusal reasons

Answering partner visa refusal reasons is legal work. It involves reading a decision against the Migration Act and the Regulations, identifying the criteria in issue, and building a review case that meets them. Our article on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa, our comparison of a partner visa lawyer and doing it yourself and our article on whether to use a migration agent or a lawyer for a partner visa set out the considerations.

People comparing firms can read our guides to choosing a partner visa lawyer in Australia and, by city, choosing a partner visa lawyer in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth. For broader immigration matters, My Migration Lawyers also acts through our immigration lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. Every consultation is conducted by video.

How My Migration Lawyers answers partner visa refusal reasons on review

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex partner visa refusals and acts in many matters where the partner visa refusal reasons involve genuine relationship findings, Schedule 3, PIC 4020, sponsorship limitations, identity and the end of the relationship. The firm is capable of handling refusals on each of these grounds, and its approach starts with the decision record, not with a template.

In practice, the firm's work on a partner visa refusal includes:

• Confirming the notification date and the review deadline, and confirming that the decision is a reviewable refusal rather than an invalid application.
• Reading the decision record line by line and listing every criterion cited and every finding of fact behind it.
• Obtaining the Department's file where needed, so that the evidence the officer relied on, including information from earlier applications, is known.
• Lodging the ART review application properly and on time, by the applicant for an onshore refusal or by the Australian sponsor for an offshore Subclass 309 refusal.
• Preparing new evidence that answers each finding: relationship statements, Form 888 statements, financial and household records, health and police documents, identity evidence or family violence evidence, as the decision requires.
• Preparing written legal submissions that address each of the partner visa refusal reasons against the relevant clause, criterion and policy, including compelling reasons and PIC 4020 waiver arguments where they arise.
• Preparing the applicant, the sponsor and witnesses for the hearing, and appearing at the hearing.
• Advising on the bridging visa, travel and any other visa options while the review is pending.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. Information about the firm's refusal work is on our partner visa refusals page, information about the onshore application is on our Subclass 820 visa page and the offshore application on our Subclass 309 visa page, and information about the firm's wider partner visa practice is on our partner visa lawyers page. More about the firm is on our about page.

If you have received a partner visa refusal and want the partner visa refusal reasons in your decision read and answered before the review deadline, book a consultation online or call 1300 040 300.