Partner Visa Refused Because of an Age Gap

A partner visa refused age gap decision is one of the most distressing letters a couple can receive, because it can feel as though the Department of Home Affairs has judged the relationship on a number alone. Where a partner visa has been refused and the age gap between the partners was mentioned in the reasons, the couple need to know two things straight away. The first is that a partner visa refused age gap decision is reviewable, and an age difference is not a legal criterion for any partner visa. The second is that the time limit to apply for review is short and cannot be extended.

This guide is written for couples who have just received a partner visa refused age gap decision and who are still within time to act. It explains what the law actually requires, how an age difference tends to appear in a refusal decision record, why that reasoning can often be challenged, and what evidence answers each concern at the Administrative Review Tribunal. It also sets out what Tribunal decisions show about these cases and how My Migration Lawyers approaches them.

Where a partner visa was refused for reasons that do not mention age, our broader guide on partner visa refusal appeal options and our explanation of why partner visas get refused may be the better place to start.

Can a partner visa be refused because of an age gap?

No, a partner visa cannot lawfully be refused because of an age gap alone, because an age difference is not a criterion in the Migration Act 1958 or the Migration Regulations 1994 for any partner visa. Neither section 5F (spouse) nor section 5CB (de facto partner) of the Migration Act mentions the ages of the partners relative to each other. Neither does regulation 1.15A(3) for married couples or regulation 1.09A(3) for de facto couples.

What the law tests is the relationship itself. The question in every partner visa refused age gap case is whether the couple have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, whether the relationship is genuine and continuing, and whether they live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. Those requirements apply equally to a couple born in the same year and to a couple born thirty years apart.

That does not mean an age difference is irrelevant to a delegate. A delegate must consider all the circumstances of the relationship, and a delegate is entitled to notice a large age difference. The problem arises when the age difference is treated as if it proved something on its own, or when it is used to fill gaps in reasoning that the evidence does not support. That is where a partner visa refused age gap decision becomes open to challenge.

The only age rules that do exist

There are age rules in partner visa law, but they are about minimum age, not about the gap between partners. Under regulation 2.03A(2) of the Migration Regulations, both partners in a de facto relationship must be at least 18. For married couples, the marriage must be valid for Australian migration law purposes, and the Marriage Act 1961 sets the marriageable age. These rules are entirely different from an age difference. A decision that confuses the two contains a clear error.

What the law actually tests in a partner visa refused age gap case

The law tests whether the relationship meets the definition of spouse in section 5F or de facto partner in section 5CB, assessed against all the circumstances of the relationship, including four prescribed matters. For a Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309 or Subclass 100 application, regulation 1.15A(2) (married couples) and regulation 1.09A(2) (de facto couples) require the decision maker to consider all the circumstances, including:

• Financial aspects of the relationship. Joint ownership of assets, joint liabilities, pooling of finances, and how day to day expenses are shared.
• The nature of the household. Joint living arrangements, the care and support of children, and how household responsibilities are divided.
• Social aspects of the relationship. Whether the couple present as a couple to friends, family and the community, and whether others recognise the relationship.
• The nature of the commitment. The duration of the relationship, the time spent living together, the companionship and emotional support the partners give each other, and whether they see the relationship as long term.

These are the four aspects of one relationship. They are not separate tests to be passed one by one, and they are not separate statements. The couple give one relationship statement, and the evidence is weighed as a whole. Our guide to partner visa relationship evidence explains how each aspect is usually proved.

The Department's own policy on refusal decisions

The Department's procedural instructions on assessing married and de facto relationships tell delegates that the four matters are circumstances to be considered, not a checklist. A delegate must not decide the case by counting how many matters are satisfied and how many are not. The instructions also say that if a partner visa is refused because there is no spousal or de facto relationship, the refusal decision must address all four matters.

This matters in a partner visa refused age gap case. If a refusal dwells on the age difference but says little or nothing about joint finances, the household, social recognition or the evidence of commitment, the decision has not done what the law and the policy require. That gap is often the starting point for the review.

Why the burden still sits with the couple

The couple must still satisfy the decision maker that the relationship is genuine. A refusal does not become wrong simply because it mentions age. The practical task after a partner visa refused age gap decision is to identify exactly what the delegate doubted and then put evidence before the Tribunal that answers each doubt directly. Our guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship covers the general principles.

How an age difference shows up in a refusal decision record

An age difference rarely appears in a refusal decision on its own; it is usually listed alongside other concerns, and the combination is what led the delegate to refuse. Reading the decision record carefully is the first step in every partner visa refused age gap review, because the concerns that sit next to the age difference are the ones the Tribunal will want answered.

The concerns that most often travel with an age difference are set out below.

A short courtship before marriage or living together

A delegate may note that the couple married or moved in together soon after meeting and that one partner is much older. The implied reasoning is that a quick commitment, combined with an age difference, suggests the relationship was entered into for a visa. A short courtship is not unlawful, and in many cultures a short engagement is normal. The answer lies in the history of the relationship: how the couple met, how contact developed, when and why they decided to commit, and what has happened since. Where the relationship is a de facto relationship, the separate 12 month requirement for some visas also needs to be checked, and our guide to the Subclass 820 de facto 12 month rule explains it.

Limited time spent together

For offshore applications, a delegate may record that the couple have spent only a few weeks together in person and that the sponsor is much older or much younger than the applicant. One published Tribunal decision listed exactly this combination in its headnote: an age difference, with the sponsor wife significantly older, and very little time spent together. Limited time together is common where couples are separated by distance, cost, visa rules or travel restrictions. The answer is evidence of the reasons for the separation and evidence of the contact and commitment maintained during it.

Financial dependence

Where one partner is older and financially established and the other has little income, a delegate may suggest that the relationship is financial rather than genuine. Financial support between partners is normal and is in fact one of the matters the law looks for. The issue is whether the money flows are consistent with a shared life or consistent with something else. A decision that treats ordinary support as suspicious simply because of the age difference can be challenged.

Migration motive and visa history

A delegate may note that the applicant had few other ways to remain in Australia, or had a history of visa refusals, and connect that to the age difference. The existence of a migration benefit does not mean the relationship is not genuine. Almost every partner visa applicant obtains a migration benefit. The law asks whether the relationship is genuine, not whether the applicant also wants to live in Australia. Our article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal covers how previous refusals are assessed.

Cultural or family disapproval

Some refusals mention that the families do not know about the relationship, disapprove of it, or did not attend the wedding, and link that to the age difference. The Department's own policy recognises that the laws or traditions of an applicant's home country may discourage a couple from openly admitting a relationship. Family disapproval of an age difference can be a reason why social recognition looks thin, not evidence that the relationship is false. A published decision referred to in this guide lists an age difference together with a lack of social recognition of the relationship.

Knowledge of each other and interview answers

Delegates sometimes interview couples separately and then compare answers. Where answers differ, the delegate may connect the inconsistencies to the age difference and conclude that the couple do not know each other well. Small differences in recall are normal, particularly across a language barrier or where partners of different generations describe events differently. The answer is a careful explanation of each inconsistency, supported by documents where possible.

How large does an age difference need to be before it is raised?

There is no fixed age difference at which a partner visa becomes harder to obtain, because the law sets no limit on the gap between partners. Some partner visa refused age gap decisions involve a difference of ten years. Others involve twenty or thirty years. One published Tribunal decision referred to later in this guide records a 19 year age difference.

What tends to matter is not the number itself but what sits around it. A twenty year difference between partners who have lived together for four years, own a home together and are known to both families rarely attracts comment. A smaller difference between partners who met online, married within weeks and have spent little time together may attract more attention. In a partner visa refused age gap case, the size of the gap is less important than the evidence that was, or was not, before the delegate.

Which partner is older can also be raised

Some refusals note that the sponsor is much older than the applicant. Others note that the applicant is older, or that an older woman is sponsoring a younger man. The Tribunal decisions in this area include both patterns. The law treats them in exactly the same way. Whichever partner is older, a partner visa refused age gap decision must still be justified by findings about the relationship under section 5F or section 5CB.

Age difference in onshore and offshore refusals

A partner visa refused age gap decision can arise in any partner visa subclass. Offshore Subclass 309 refusals more often combine the age difference with limited time together, because the couple may have met only on short visits. Onshore Subclass 820 refusals more often combine it with the applicant's visa history, the timing of the relationship, or the way the household and finances are arranged. Both types are reviewable at the Tribunal, subject to the rules on who applies, which are explained below.

Is a partner visa refused age gap decision a final decision?

No, a partner visa refused age gap decision made by a delegate is not final if a valid application for review is lodged with the Administrative Review Tribunal within time. For most onshore and offshore partner visa refusals, the Tribunal can review the decision on its merits. The main exception is a Subclass 100 decision made while the applicant is outside Australia, which has no Tribunal review.

The decision becomes final, in practical terms, if the review deadline passes. That is why the date of notification is the first thing to establish after any partner visa refused age gap decision. Our commercial page on partner visa refusals explains how the firm approaches review work, and our page for immigration lawyers across Australia sets out the wider practice.

Why the reasoning in a partner visa refused age gap decision can be challenged

The reasoning in a partner visa refused age gap decision can be challenged because the Tribunal reconsiders the whole case afresh and is not bound by the delegate's assumptions, and because reasoning that rests on an age difference often rests on generalisations rather than on evidence about the particular couple. A partner visa refused age gap decision is strongest for the Department when the age difference is only one small part of a detailed assessment. It is weakest when the age difference is doing the work that the evidence should be doing.

Assumptions in place of findings

A delegate must make findings about the relationship before them. A statement such as "it is unusual for a person of the applicant's age to marry a person of the sponsor's age" is a generalisation. It says nothing about whether this couple share finances, live together, are recognised by others, and intend to stay together. In a partner visa refused age gap review, the first task is often to separate the delegate's findings from the delegate's assumptions. The Tribunal will want to hear about the couple, not about couples in general.

Failing to weigh all the circumstances

As explained above, the law requires the decision maker to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including the four matters, and policy requires a refusal on relationship grounds to address all four. A refusal that gives heavy weight to the age difference while overlooking evidence of joint finances, a shared home, or long periods of cohabitation is vulnerable. The Tribunal must weigh everything that is before it, including evidence the delegate set aside.

Adverse information not put to the couple

Where a delegate relies on specific adverse information, such as a statement from a third party or an inconsistency in an earlier application, the couple may have been entitled to be told about it and to respond. Our guide to the section 57 natural justice letter for partner visas explains how that process works. If the couple received a natural justice letter or a section 56 request for more information before the refusal, their answers to it will form part of the record the Tribunal reads.

Thin evidence before the delegate

Many partner visa refused age gap decisions are, in truth, decisions about thin evidence. The couple may have lodged the application with a short statement and a handful of photos, assuming that a marriage certificate was enough. The delegate then had little to weigh against the age difference. This is the most common situation in which review is worthwhile, because the Tribunal can receive the evidence that should have been provided at the start. One published Tribunal decision records exactly this: an age difference and limited evidence provided to the Department, followed by detailed statements and documentation provided to the Tribunal.

How to read the refusal decision

A partner visa refused age gap decision usually follows a standard structure, and reading it in order helps identify what must be answered. A practical approach is:

• Find the criterion. Identify the criterion the delegate found was not met. In an age gap case this is usually the requirement to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor at the time of application and at the time of decision.
• List every concern. Write down each concern in the reasons, including the age difference and every factor it was combined with.
• Check the four aspects. Note what the delegate said about financial aspects, the household, social aspects and commitment, and what the delegate did not mention at all.
• Identify ignored evidence. Compare the reasons with what was actually lodged, and note evidence that was provided but not discussed.
• Note the date. Record the date the decision was sent and how it was sent, because that fixes the review deadline.

This exercise does not replace legal advice, but it gives a couple a clear picture of the case they need to meet in a partner visa refused age gap review.

What review cannot fix

An honest assessment is part of good advice. Review will not succeed where the relationship has ended, where the couple are not in fact committed to each other, or where the documents lodged were false. If a partner visa refused age gap decision also relied on public interest criterion 4020 (false or misleading information or bogus documents), that issue must be dealt with separately and carefully. Our article on Subclass 820 relationship breakdown explains what happens when a relationship has ended, and the family violence provisions may be relevant in some cases.

What is the deadline to appeal a partner visa refused age gap decision?

The deadline to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review of a partner visa refused age gap decision is 28 days after the day the applicant is notified of the decision, or 7 days if the applicant is in immigration detention on the day of notification. These time limits come from section 347(3) of the Migration Act. The Tribunal has no power to extend them. An application made late is not properly made, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it.

The Administrative Review Tribunal replaced the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. Earlier decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal remain useful guidance on how relationship cases are decided. For a broader explanation of the process, see our guide on what to expect after your visa is refused and you apply for ART review.

When the 28 days start

The 28 days run from the day after the applicant is notified of the decision. Under section 494C of the Migration Act, notification depends on how the decision was sent:

• By email. The applicant is taken to have received the decision at the end of the day it was transmitted.
• By post. If the letter was posted within 3 working days of its date, the applicant is taken to have received it 7 working days after the date of the letter.
• In person. The applicant is notified immediately.

Most partner visa refusals are sent by email to the ImmiAccount holder or the authorised recipient. The relevant date is the date the email was sent, not the date it was opened.

The application fee must be paid within the same 28 days

The Tribunal charges a substantial application fee for review of a migration decision. The fee must be paid within the same 28 day period for the application to be properly made. Alternatively, a request for a fee reduction on the ground of financial hardship can be lodged, but at least 50% of the fee must still be paid within the 28 days. Where several family members were refused together and apply together, only one fee is payable.

Who must apply for review

Who applies depends on the visa refused. Getting this wrong can be fatal to the review.

• Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 (onshore). The visa applicant applies, and must be physically present in Australia when the review application is made. See our Subclass 820 visa page and our guide to Subclass 820 visa refusals.
• Subclass 309 (offshore). The visa applicant applies. The Australian partner usually instructs, supports the review and gives evidence. Our Subclass 309 visa page explains the offshore pathway.
• Subclass 300 (prospective marriage). The Australian sponsor applies. See our Subclass 300 visa page.
• Subclass 100 refused while the applicant is outside Australia. There is no Tribunal review of this decision.

The application should attach the decision notice if the applicant has it. It can be lodged using the Tribunal's online form, a paper form or a letter.

The bridging visa depends on lodging in time

For onshore applicants, lodging review in time usually protects the applicant's lawful status. A Bridging visa A granted with a partner application lodged on or after 19 November 2016 generally ceases 35 days after the refusal if no review is lodged. If review is lodged in time, the bridging visa continues and generally ceases 35 days after the Tribunal's decision, or continues if the matter is remitted. Our guides to the Bridging visa A, the Bridging visa B and bridging visas in Australia explain the details, and our article on Subclass 820 work rights on a bridging visa covers work conditions.

Where a partner visa refused age gap decision has been made and the 28 days are still running, the most important step is to lodge a valid review application and pay the fee before the deadline. The evidence can be built after the application is lodged.

What the ART can do with a partner visa refused age gap decision

The Administrative Review Tribunal can affirm the refusal, vary it, set it aside and substitute a new decision, or set it aside and remit the matter to the Department with a direction that a specified criterion is taken to be satisfied. These powers come from section 349(2) of the Migration Act and regulation 4.15(1). In a partner visa refused age gap case, a remittal usually comes with a finding that the relationship criterion is met.

The Tribunal decides the case afresh

The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the delegate. It considers the evidence available at the time of the review, including new evidence that was never before the delegate. This is why a partner visa refused age gap review is not simply an argument that the delegate was wrong. It is a second chance to prove the relationship, often with far better evidence and with the benefit of knowing exactly what the delegate doubted.

The Department usually does not appear

The Minister is a non-participating party in migration reviews. In practice the Department generally does not appear or make submissions at the hearing. The Tribunal member will ask the questions, and the couple and their witnesses answer them.

Getting the Department's file

The applicant can ask the Tribunal for access to the documents the Department gave it. The request should be made early. In a partner visa refused age gap case, the file often shows what the delegate actually relied on, including interview notes, earlier applications and third party information that may not be fully described in the decision letter.

The hearing

Most relationship reviews proceed to a hearing, usually by video or in person. The applicant, the sponsor and often supporting witnesses give evidence. If the applicant does not attend a scheduled hearing, the Tribunal can dismiss the application. Reinstatement must then be sought within 28 days after notice of the dismissal. Our general article on the ART hearing process describes how Tribunal hearings run, although the issues in a partner visa case are different.

The written decision

The Tribunal gives its decision with written reasons, and must notify the parties within 14 days of making it. If the decision is favourable and the matter is remitted, the Department must reassess the remaining criteria and is bound by the Tribunal's finding on the relationship.

Special rule for prospective marriage visas

Where a Subclass 300 visa was refused and the couple marry after the refusal but before the review is finally determined, and they notify the Tribunal, the application is taken also to be a partner visa application if the matter is remitted. This can be significant where the age difference was raised against an engaged couple who have since married.

If the Tribunal affirms the refusal

If the Tribunal affirms a partner visa refused age gap decision, the options narrow considerably. The Minister has a personal, non-compellable power under section 351 of the Migration Act to substitute a more favourable decision in the public interest. Separately, a Tribunal decision can be taken to court only for legal error. These are limited avenues, which is why the Tribunal stage should be prepared as thoroughly as possible. Our guide to visa appeal lawyers explains the overall review structure.

What evidence answers a partner visa refused age gap decision at the ART?

The evidence that answers a partner visa refused age gap decision at the Tribunal is evidence that addresses each specific doubt the delegate recorded, shown across all four aspects of the relationship, and given consistently by both partners and their witnesses. In a partner visa refused age gap review, general reassurance that "age is just a number" achieves little. Specific, consistent, documented evidence achieves a great deal.

The categories below are those most often needed. Our partner visa document checklist and the Subclass 820 evidence checklist list the documents in more detail.

A full and honest relationship history

The couple's relationship statement is their own evidence. In a partner visa refused age gap case it needs to explain, in the couple's own words, how they met, what drew them together despite the age difference, how they dealt with that difference, when and why they committed to each other, and how the relationship has developed. The statement should deal openly with the age difference rather than avoid it. A lawyer reviews the statement against the documents, identifies gaps and inconsistencies, and asks the couple to correct and confirm their own account.

Evidence of family and social acceptance

Where the delegate doubted social recognition, the answer is evidence that the couple are known and accepted as a couple. This includes Form 888 supporting statements from Australian citizens or permanent residents who know the couple, photographs at family events across time, invitations addressed to both partners, and messages from relatives. Our article on Form 888 partner visa examples shows what useful supporting statements contain. Where family disapproval exists, it should be explained honestly, with evidence of how the couple have managed it and who does support them.

Plans for ageing and care

An age difference naturally raises questions about the future: health, retirement, care, and what happens if one partner becomes unwell or dies first. A couple who have thought about these questions can show the Tribunal a real, long term commitment. Department policy itself refers to the extent to which partners have provided for each other, such as being beneficiaries of each other's will or superannuation. Relevant evidence may include:

• Wills and superannuation nominations. Each partner named as a beneficiary of the other.
• Enduring powers and health directives. Documents appointing the other partner to make decisions if one cannot.
• Retirement and housing plans. Evidence of plans for where and how the couple will live as they age.
• Discussion of children. Where relevant, how the couple have discussed whether to have children or how they care for existing children.

In a partner visa refused age gap review, this kind of evidence speaks directly to the question the delegate may have left unspoken: whether the couple have a realistic, shared plan for the years ahead. These documents must reflect real decisions the couple have made. They are not created to impress the Tribunal, and they carry weight only because they are genuine.

Financial evidence that shows a shared life

Where the delegate suggested financial dependence or a financial motive, the answer is evidence that money moves in the way it does in a shared household. Joint accounts, shared bills, a lease or mortgage in both names, transfers that match ordinary expenses, and insurance policies naming the other partner all help. Where one partner supports the other, the explanation should be clear and consistent with the rest of the relationship. In a partner visa refused age gap review, financial evidence often carries extra weight because it shows how the couple actually live, rather than how others might expect them to live.

Evidence of time together and contact during separation

For offshore couples or couples who have spent periods apart, the answer is evidence of every visit, the reasons for the time apart, and the contact maintained during separation. Travel records, boarding passes, accommodation bookings and call logs all have a place. In a partner visa refused age gap case where the delegate stressed limited time together, a clear timeline of every period spent together is often one of the most useful documents the Tribunal receives. Our guide on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa in Australia covers some of the timing issues that arise.

Explanations for interview inconsistencies

Where the delegate relied on differences between the partners' interview answers, each inconsistency should be identified and explained. Some will be simple errors of recall. Some will reflect interpretation problems. Some will reflect different perspectives across a large age difference. The explanation should be honest, and where a document resolves the point, it should be provided.

Witnesses at the hearing

Witnesses who can speak from personal knowledge about the relationship are often decisive. A sibling, an adult child of the older partner, a close friend or a neighbour can describe the couple's daily life in a way documents cannot. In a partner visa refused age gap case, a witness from the older partner's family who supports the relationship can be especially persuasive.

Common mistakes after a partner visa refused age gap decision

The most damaging mistake after a partner visa refused age gap decision is missing the 28 day deadline, and the second is lodging review without changing the evidence that led to the refusal. The beliefs below are common, and each of them can harm a review.

"We just need to prove the age gap does not matter"

This is wrong. In a partner visa refused age gap review, the Tribunal is not deciding whether age differences matter in general. It is deciding whether this couple meet section 5F or section 5CB. Arguments about age in the abstract do not prove a relationship. Evidence about the couple does.

"The marriage certificate proves we are genuine"

This is wrong. A valid marriage satisfies only one part of section 5F. Tribunal headnotes repeatedly list "validly married" alongside findings on finances, the household, social aspects and commitment, because the Tribunal must still be satisfied about all of them.

"We can make a fresh partner visa application instead"

This may not be possible. An onshore applicant whose partner visa has been refused may face a section 48 bar or other limits on making a further onshore application, and a fresh application can bring Schedule 3 issues. Our guides to Schedule 3 criteria for partner visas and Schedule 3 waivers explain why review is often the safer route for onshore couples.

"We should wait until we have all our evidence before lodging"

This is wrong. The review application must be lodged and the fee paid within 28 days. Evidence can be gathered and provided after lodgement, before the hearing.

"Changing our story will help"

This is wrong and dangerous. The Tribunal compares everything the couple have said in the application, at interview and at the hearing. Correcting a genuine mistake is appropriate and should be explained. Changing an account to answer the delegate's doubts damages credibility and can raise public interest criterion 4020. A partner visa refused age gap review succeeds on consistent, truthful evidence, not on a revised story.

What Tribunal decisions show about partner visa refused age gap cases

Tribunal decisions show that partner visa refusals mentioning an age difference have been set aside and remitted where the couple proved the genuine relationship with evidence. The decisions below are published remittals in which the Tribunal set aside the refusal and sent the matter back to the Department. Each summary describes only what the published headnote records.

• Tay (Migration) [2023] AATA 574. A Subclass 309 matter. The headnote records a substantial age difference, persuasive evidence consistent with the sponsor's commitment to a relationship with the visa applicant, and a copy of the marriage certificate provided.
• Rahmani (Migration) [2022] AATA 3881. A Subclass 309 matter. The headnote records commitment to a shared life together, a valid marriage in a third country, an age difference with the sponsor wife being significantly older, and very little time spent together.
• 1827567 (Migration) [2019] AATA 1050. A Subclass 309 matter remitted to the Tribunal by the Federal Circuit Court. The headnote records a genuine spousal relationship, an age difference, and a lack of social recognition of the relationship.
• Magallanes (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1331. A Subclass 820 matter decided by the Administrative Review Tribunal. The headnote records a genuine and continuing relationship, an age difference and limited evidence provided to the Department, detailed statements and documentation provided to the Tribunal, and a relationship that is now registered.
• 2002392 (Migration) [2024] AATA 3828. A Subclass 820 matter. The headnote records a genuine and continuing relationship at the time of application, the financial, household and social aspects and the nature of commitment, an age difference, and supporting statements.
• Paniram (Migration) [2024] AATA 3467. A Subclass 820 matter. The headnote records a genuine and continuing relationship, the four aspects of the relationship, and age, progression and length of the relationship.
• Dinh (Migration) [2024] AATA 1162. A Subclass 820 matter. The headnote records a genuine and continuing relationship, a valid marriage, the four aspects of the relationship, and an age difference.
• Kashyap (Migration) [2019] AATA 3265. A Subclass 820 matter. The headnote records a genuine spousal relationship, an age difference, the couple's knowledge of each other, and recognition of the relationship.
• Nguyen (Migration) [2018] AATA 5304. A Subclass 820 matter. The headnote records a genuine spousal relationship, marital status with Centrelink, inconsistencies between the applicant and sponsor at the hearing, and a 19 year age difference.
• Nguyen (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1653. A Subclass 309 matter. The headnote records the four aspects of the relationship and the start and progress of the relationship as older divorcees.
• SHENG (Migration) [2026] ARTA 429. A Subclass 820 matter. The headnote records a valid marriage in Australia, the four aspects of the relationship, and the sponsor's age and health.

What these decisions have in common

Three patterns appear in these headnotes. First, the age difference is always listed with other matters, never alone. Second, the headnotes refer to evidence: supporting statements, detailed statements and documentation, recognition of the relationship, and knowledge of each other. Third, both offshore and onshore refusals appear, and decisions of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal sit alongside decisions of the Administrative Review Tribunal. Each case turned on its own facts, and none of them predicts the outcome of another partner visa refused age gap review.

What happens after a partner visa refused age gap decision is remitted?

After a remittal, the Department must reconsider the application and is bound by the Tribunal's finding that the relationship criterion is satisfied, but it must still assess the remaining criteria before granting the visa. Those criteria usually include health, character, police clearances and public interest criteria such as public interest criterion 4004 on debts to the Commonwealth.

The Department may ask for updated police certificates, health examinations or a Form 80. Any change in circumstances during this period should be reported using Form 1022. For Subclass 820 applicants, the permanent Subclass 801 stage still follows, and our guide to Subclass 820 compared with Subclass 801 explains how the two stages work together. For timing after grant, see our article on how long an onshore Subclass 820 takes.

Where the sponsor previously sponsored another partner, sponsorship limitations may also need attention, and our article on partner visa sponsorship limitations explains the rules. Same-sex couples facing an age gap refusal can read more on our LGBTI partner visa page.

How My Migration Lawyers handles partner visa refused age gap matters

My Migration Lawyers acts in partner visa refused age gap matters by reading the refusal closely, separating the delegate's assumptions from the delegate's findings, lodging the review in time, and then building evidence that answers each concern about the age difference directly. The firm deals with complex partner visa refusals, acts in many matters of this exact type, and is capable of handling them through to the Tribunal hearing and any remittal.

Our work on a partner visa refused age gap review follows clear steps:

• Deadline and validity first. We confirm the date of notification, calculate the 28 day deadline, identify who must apply for this subclass, and make sure the review application is lodged and the fee is paid in time, so that the applicant's bridging visa is protected where it applies.
• Reading the refusal. We go through the decision record line by line and identify each place where the age difference was mentioned, what other concerns it was combined with, and whether all four aspects of the relationship were properly addressed.
• Obtaining the Department's file. We request the documents the Department gave the Tribunal, so that interview notes, earlier applications and any third party information are known before the hearing.
• Deciding the legal arguments. The lawyer decides which arguments are run, including any error in how the age difference was used, any failure to weigh all the circumstances and any natural justice issue.
• Evidence and statements. We review the couple's relationship statement against the forms and the documents, identify gaps and inconsistencies, and ask the couple to correct and confirm their own account. We identify the evidence that answers each concern, including family acceptance, finances, plans for ageing and care, and time together, and we check Form 888 supporting statements.
• Written submissions. We prepare submissions to the Tribunal that connect the evidence to section 5F or section 5CB and the four aspects of the relationship, with reference to relevant published decisions.
• Hearing preparation and attendance. We explain how the hearing runs, what topics the Tribunal member is likely to raise about the age difference, and how witnesses give evidence, and we appear at the hearing.
• After the decision. If the matter is remitted, we deal with the Department's further requests until the remaining criteria are assessed.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers, see the firm's work as partner visa lawyers, and read about our broader visa refusal appeal work. Our guide on when to use an immigration lawyer for a partner visa, our explanation of the partner visa migration agent or lawyer roles, and our article on partner visa lawyer help versus doing it yourself explain what professional help involves. If you already have an adviser and want an independent view of the refusal, our guide to getting an immigration lawyer second opinion may help, and our article on urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to do when a deadline is close. Our overview of partner visas in Australia and our guide to the de facto partner visa in Australia cover the wider framework.

My Migration Lawyers acts for clients across Australia by video consultation, including clients of our partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. The firm also acts as immigration lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta.

Every partner visa refused age gap matter is different, and no lawyer can promise an outcome. What My Migration Lawyers can do is make sure the review is lodged validly and on time, that the reasoning about the age difference is tested properly, and that the Tribunal sees the full evidence of the relationship.

Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your partner visa refused age gap decision reviewed while there is still time to act. You can also call us on 1300 040 300.