Partner Visa Refused After Years Together: Why It Happens

A partner visa refused long relationship decision is one of the most distressing letters a couple can receive. You have been together for five, eight or even fifteen years. You may have children, a home and a shared life that everyone around you recognises. Yet the Department of Home Affairs has refused the partner visa. When a partner visa refused long relationship case reaches My Migration Lawyers, the first task is to find out exactly why the delegate refused it, because the length of the relationship is rarely the problem on its own. This article explains why couples with many years together are still refused, which legal criteria cause the refusal, and what to do next while you can still seek review at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). It is written for couples who have received a refusal within the last few weeks and want to understand their options. If you want a broader overview of refusals first, read our guide to partner visa refusals and ART appeals.

Why is a partner visa refused after a long relationship?

A partner visa is refused after a long relationship because the law does not reward the number of years a couple has been together; it asks whether specific criteria are met at specific times, and any one failed criterion is enough for refusal. A partner visa refused long relationship outcome therefore often surprises couples who assumed their history spoke for itself.

The Migration Regulations 1994 set out the criteria for each partner visa. For the onshore Subclass 820 visa, the applicant must be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor at the time of application and must continue to be in that relationship at the time of decision. The same logic applies to the offshore Subclass 309 visa. The delegate looks for evidence that the relationship is genuine and continuing at those points in time.

Beyond the relationship, the applicant must also meet public interest criteria such as health, character and the integrity criterion in public interest criterion (PIC) 4020. The sponsor must be eligible to sponsor. An onshore applicant without a substantive visa must also deal with Schedule 3. A couple can therefore be together for a decade and still be refused because a single non-relationship criterion was not satisfied. Our article on why partner visas get refused sets out the general grounds, and our analysis of the most common reasons Subclass 820 visas are refused covers the onshore picture in more detail.

The reasons this article covers

Each partner visa refused long relationship decision has its own reasons, but the same patterns appear again and again:

• The relevant time. The relationship is assessed at the time of application and the time of decision, so a separation, a period apart or a recent reconciliation can damage the case.
• Old relationships, thin recent evidence. Long relationships often have strong early evidence and weak evidence for the last few years.
• Inconsistent histories. Dates and relationship details given in earlier visa applications may not match the partner application, which raises PIC 4020.
• Undeclared earlier relationships. A previous marriage or relationship that was not disclosed can create a credibility and integrity problem.
• A previous marriage not legally ended. A later marriage may not be valid for migration purposes.
• Schedule 3. Long-term onshore couples who have lived in Australia without a substantive visa face extra criteria.
• Sponsorship limitation. A sponsor who has sponsored before, or who was sponsored, may be limited.
• Non-relationship criteria. Health, character and police certificates can cause refusal even when the relationship is accepted.

Does a long relationship help a partner visa application at all?

Yes, a long relationship helps, because the law gives long-term couples some real advantages, but those advantages do not remove the need to prove every criterion. Understanding what length does and does not do is the starting point for any partner visa refused long relationship review.

The long-term partner relationship rule

Regulation 1.03 defines a long-term partner relationship as a relationship of at least three years, or at least two years if there is a dependent child (other than a step-child) of both the applicant and the sponsor. Under subclause 801.221(6A), an onshore applicant who was in a long-term partner relationship with the sponsor when the application was made can be granted the permanent Subclass 801 visa immediately after the Subclass 820 visa, without the usual two-year wait. Subclause 100.221(5) does the same for the offshore Subclass 100 visa.

This rule rewards length, but only if the relationship is accepted as genuine and continuing in the first place. If the delegate is not satisfied about the relationship at the time of application, the long-term rule never comes into play. Our guide to how long the onshore partner visa takes explains how the two stages normally work.

What length cannot do

Length does not prove the current state of a relationship. A delegate deciding an application in 2026 needs to know what the relationship looked like when the application was lodged and what it looks like now. Ten years together does not answer the question of whether the couple lived apart permanently for the last two of those years. In many partner visa refused long relationship files, the couple put their effort into proving the early years, which were never in doubt, and left the recent years thin.

Length also does not cure integrity or eligibility problems. A long relationship cannot fix an earlier visa application that gave a false marital status, a sponsor who is barred by the sponsorship limitation, or a Schedule 3 criterion that was not met. These are separate legal tests, and each one must be checked in any partner visa refused long relationship review.

What is the relevant time for assessing a partner relationship?

The relevant times for assessing a partner relationship are the time the application is made and the time the decision is made, and the couple must satisfy the relationship test at both points. This is the single most important legal concept behind a partner visa refused long relationship decision.

The legal test

For a married couple, section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 requires a valid marriage, a mutual commitment to a shared life as spouses to the exclusion of all others, a genuine and continuing relationship, and that the couple live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. For a couple who are not married, section 5CB sets out a similar test, including the same mutual commitment, the requirement that the relationship is genuine and continuing, and the requirement that they live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

Regulation 1.15A (for spouses) and regulation 1.09A (for de facto partners) require the decision maker to consider all the circumstances, including four aspects of the relationship:

• Financial aspects. Joint ownership, shared liabilities, pooling of money and the basis of financial arrangements.
• Nature of the household. Living arrangements, shared responsibility for the home and the care of children.
• Social aspects. Whether the couple present themselves as a couple to friends, family and the community.
• Nature of the commitment. The length of the relationship, companionship, emotional support and the couple's view of the future.

These are aspects of one relationship, assessed together. They are proved through the couple's relationship statement, documents and Form 888 supporting statements from people who know the couple. Our guide on how to prove your relationship is genuine explains how each aspect is usually evidenced.

Why timing causes refusals in long relationships

Clause 820.211 asks about the relationship at the time of application. Clause 820.221 asks whether the applicant continues to meet that requirement at the time of decision. Subclause 801.221(2) then asks whether the relationship is still continuing at the permanent stage. Because onshore processing can take years, the delegate may be looking at a very different relationship from the one described at lodgement.

If anything happened between those dates, the delegate will want an explanation. That includes a separation, a move to another city or country, a period when one partner cared for a parent overseas, or a change of address that the Department was not told about. Section 104 of the Migration Act requires applicants to notify the Department of changes in circumstances that make an answer in the application incorrect, usually by Form 1022. When a change surfaces late, or from a third party, the delegate may doubt the whole relationship history. That is how a partner visa refused long relationship file often begins: not with a weak relationship, but with an unexplained change.

How do separations and living apart affect a long relationship?

Separations and periods of living apart affect a long relationship by raising the question of whether the couple were living separately and apart on a permanent basis at the relevant time, and a delegate who is not satisfied on that point will refuse. Many partner visa refused long relationship decisions turn on this issue.

Living apart for work, study or family

Couples in long relationships often live apart for practical reasons. One partner may work fly-in fly-out, take a job in another state or return to their home country to care for a sick parent. Couples may live in separate countries for years while waiting for a visa. The law does not require couples to live together every day. It requires that they do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

The difference lies in the evidence. A couple who lived apart for work should be able to show regular contact, financial support, visits, shared plans and a clear reason for the arrangement. A couple whose evidence for the period apart consists of a few messages will struggle. In a partner visa refused long relationship review, the period apart is often the part of the history that needs the most work.

The Tribunal has accepted long periods apart where the evidence explains them. In Singh (Migration) [2018] AATA 5925, the reported issue was a genuine spousal relationship where the sponsor financially supported the visa applicant and the couple had lived in separate countries for the past 10 years; the relationship was widely recognised, and the refusal was set aside and remitted. In 1819561 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2356, the Tribunal noted that a lesser level of face-to-face contact came about because the parties lived in separate countries, and the matter was remitted.

Separation and reconciliation

A separation followed by reconciliation is one of the hardest situations in a partner visa refused long relationship case. The delegate may conclude that the relationship ended and that the reconciliation is not genuine, or that it happened only for migration purposes. Timing is critical: a separation that existed at the time of application, or at the time of decision, can be fatal on its own.

Reconciliation is not a bar to a partner visa. The question is whether, at the relevant time, the couple had a genuine and continuing relationship with a mutual commitment to a shared life. In Restrepo (Migration) [2021] AATA 2558, the couple had reconciled their relationship, and the Tribunal found a high degree of companionship and emotional support and a genuine married relationship at the time of application. In Harris (Migration) [2018] AATA 4904, the parties separated and then reconciled, reapplied for a partner visa and had a long-distance relationship due to the applicant's work; the refusal was set aside and remitted.

A couple who separated should never hide it. The separation will usually appear somewhere in the record, such as a change of address, a social media post or a Centrelink record. A partner visa refused long relationship case is far easier to argue when the separation is explained openly, with evidence of why it happened, why it ended and what the relationship has looked like since. Our article on what happens if the relationship breaks down during a Subclass 820 application explains the related rules where the relationship has actually ended.

When the delegate relies on information you did not know about

Delegates sometimes rely on information from third parties, such as anonymous allegations, or on records from other agencies. If that information is adverse, the delegate should usually give the applicant a chance to comment, often through a section 57 natural justice letter. In KAUR (Migration) [2019] AATA 3936, 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; the Tribunal set aside the refusal and remitted the matter.

Why do long relationships often have less recent evidence?

Long relationships often have less recent evidence because couples who have been together for many years stop creating the documents that new couples naturally collect, and delegates focus on the recent period. A partner visa refused long relationship decision frequently describes the evidence as "dated" or "limited" for the period closest to the application.

How evidence thins out over time

In the first years of a relationship, couples sign a first lease together, open a joint account, take photographs on holidays and send each other frequent messages. After ten years, the lease may be in one name, the bills may be paid from one account by habit, and the couple may rarely take photographs of themselves. Friends know them as a couple, so nobody thinks to write it down.

When the couple then apply, they often provide a large volume of evidence from the early years and very little from the last two or three. A delegate assessing the relationship at the time of application and the time of decision may find that the recent evidence does not show a shared household, pooled finances or a public relationship. The result is a partner visa refused long relationship decision that seems to ignore a decade of history.

What strong recent evidence looks like

Recent evidence for a long relationship does not need to be dramatic. It needs to be regular and consistent. Examples include:

• Financial aspects. Joint or linked bank accounts, transfers between partners, shared mortgage or rent, each partner named as beneficiary on superannuation or insurance, and joint tax or Centrelink records showing the relationship.
• Nature of the household. Shared lease or title, both names on utilities, correspondence to both partners at the same address, and evidence of shared care of children.
• Social aspects. Recent Form 888 statements from people who see the couple regularly, invitations addressed to both partners, and joint memberships.
• Nature of the commitment. Wills, plans for the future, care during illness and evidence of contact during any period apart.

Our partner visa document checklist, our Subclass 820 evidence checklist and our guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explain the categories in detail. At review, the same categories can be filled with evidence created since the refusal, because the Tribunal considers the relationship as it stands when it makes its decision.

In Shrestha (Migration) [2019] AATA 1554, the reported issue was the consistency of evidence over a lengthy period of time, with sufficient evidence of a genuine and continuing de facto partnership, and the matter was remitted. In Vo (Migration) [2024] AATA 678, the reported issues included a joint bank account, limited evidence of social activities and a lengthy marriage; the Tribunal still set the refusal aside and remitted the matter. Consistency across time matters more than volume, and that is the lesson of most partner visa refused long relationship decisions.

How do inconsistent dates in old visa applications cause a refusal?

Inconsistent dates and histories in old visa applications cause a refusal because the Department compares every application the applicant has ever lodged, and a conflict can lead the delegate to doubt the relationship or to find that false or misleading information was given under PIC 4020. This is one of the most serious causes of a partner visa refused long relationship outcome.

Why long relationships carry more history

A couple who have been together for many years have usually dealt with the Department many times. The applicant may have held visitor visas, student visas, work visas or bridging visas. Each application asked questions about marital status, relationship history, addresses and travel. Some were completed by the applicant, some by family members and some by advisers. Over ten years, small differences in dates and answers accumulate.

When the partner application states that the relationship began in 2014, but a 2016 visitor visa application said the applicant was single, the delegate will ask which is true. The answer may be innocent. The couple may have been dating but not yet committed, or the form may have asked about marriage only. But the delegate is entitled to draw conclusions from inconsistencies, and the applicant must explain them. Our guide to completing Form 80 without errors explains why the personal history forms are checked so closely.

How PIC 4020 works in a partner case

PIC 4020 is the integrity criterion in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations. Broadly, a visa can be refused if the applicant gave, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, in the current application or in certain earlier applications. PIC 4020 also contains identity requirements. For partner visas, the criterion can be waived in some circumstances, including compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen or permanent resident, such as the sponsor.

The Tribunal has set aside refusals where the inconsistency was explained. In Pham (Migration) [2021] AATA 4350, the reported issue was false or misleading information in a previous visitor visa application where the applicant answered "married" but was separated at the time and later divorced; credible witness evidence was accepted and the matter was remitted. In TRUONG (Migration) [2024] AATA 680, the reported issues were false or misleading information in a material particular, a previous visitor visa application, marital status, and a couple who were separated but still living together; the refusal was set aside and remitted.

In a partner visa refused long relationship review, the task is to obtain the old applications, compare them line by line with the current application, and give a full, honest and documented explanation for each difference. A Freedom of Information request to the Department is often needed to see exactly what was said in earlier applications. Without that comparison, a partner visa refused long relationship appeal risks repeating the same inconsistency.

What happens if an earlier relationship or marriage was not declared?

If an earlier relationship or marriage was not declared, the delegate may find the applicant not credible, may find that false or misleading information was given, and may doubt the timeline of the current relationship. Non-disclosure is a frequent factor in a partner visa refused long relationship decision.

Why earlier relationships matter

Partner visa applications and Form 80 ask about previous marriages and relationships. Applicants sometimes leave out a relationship because it was short, because it happened long ago, because it ended badly or because they believe it is irrelevant. The Department may already hold information about it, for example from an earlier sponsorship, a visa application listing that person as a partner, or a child born of that relationship.

An undeclared earlier relationship also affects the timeline. If the applicant was still in another relationship when the current relationship is said to have started, the delegate may question when the current relationship became committed and exclusive. This matters for the mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, which sits at the centre of every partner visa refused long relationship assessment.

In Ahmed (Migration) [2023] AATA 3761, the reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, a valid marriage, pooling of finances while living in different countries, and adverse and inconsistent information about previous relationships; the refusal was set aside and remitted. In MANYANG (Migration) [2020] AATA 611, the reported issues included a previous marriage and separation and a long period without contact, alongside the financial, household and social aspects of the relationship, and the matter was remitted.

How to correct the record

If a previous relationship was not disclosed, it must be disclosed now, with an explanation. Attempting to keep it hidden at review makes the position worse. A well-prepared partner visa refused long relationship review deals with the earlier relationship directly: when it began, when it ended, the evidence of the ending and why it was not mentioned before. The applicant gives that account in their own words, and the lawyer checks it against the documents.

What if a previous marriage was never legally ended?

If a previous marriage was never legally ended, a later marriage is generally not valid under Australian law, so the couple cannot rely on that later marriage for a spouse visa, although they may still qualify on another relationship basis if the legal requirements are met. This issue appears in a meaningful number of partner visa refused long relationship cases.

Why validity matters

Section 5F requires the couple to be in a married relationship under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Migration Act. Under the Marriage Act 1961, a marriage is void if either party was already married to someone else at the time. A religious or customary ceremony in another country does not end an earlier legal marriage. Only a divorce or annulment recognised in Australia, or the death of the earlier spouse, does that.

Couples in long relationships sometimes married years ago, before one partner's divorce from an earlier spouse was finalised. They may not have realised the divorce was incomplete. The delegate then finds that the claimed marriage is not valid and that the applicant cannot meet the spouse requirements.

What can be done

The answer depends on the facts. The couple may be able to show that they meet the legal test for a relationship other than marriage at the relevant time, because the law does not require a valid marriage for every partner visa. They may also be able to finalise the earlier divorce and remarry, although that does not change the facts at the time of application. Our article on the 12-month relationship rule and its exceptions explains the alternative basis and its time requirements.

In 1706602 (Migration) [2019] AATA 5299, the reported issues were a genuine spousal relationship, the validity of the marriage with the sponsor, and the status of the visa applicant's previous marriage, which had been solemnised and recognised as valid under local laws; the Tribunal set aside the refusal and remitted the matter. In a partner visa refused long relationship review involving an earlier marriage, foreign divorce documents and expert evidence of foreign law may be needed.

How does Schedule 3 affect long-term onshore couples?

Schedule 3 affects long-term onshore couples because an applicant who did not hold a substantive visa when the Subclass 820 application was made must satisfy criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the decision maker is satisfied there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria. Many partner visa refused long relationship decisions for couples living in Australia turn on Schedule 3 rather than the relationship.

Who Schedule 3 applies to

Couples who have lived together in Australia for many years sometimes include an applicant whose visa expired long ago, or who has been on a bridging visa that is not a substantive visa. Under subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii), such an applicant must satisfy the Schedule 3 criteria unless the delegate is satisfied there are compelling reasons not to apply them. A partner visa refused long relationship decision on Schedule 3 grounds can arise even when the delegate accepts every part of the relationship. Our guide to Schedule 3 criteria when you are unlawful explains the criteria in detail.

The three criteria

• Criterion 3001. This sets a time limit for making the application, measured from when the applicant last held a substantive visa. A long-term couple who applied years after the last visa expired will usually fail it.
• Criterion 3003. This applies to an illegal entrant and contains several items, including that the applicant became unlawful because of factors beyond their control, that there are compelling reasons to grant the visa, and that the applicant substantially complied with previous visa conditions.
• Criterion 3004. This applies to a person without a substantive visa who is not an illegal entrant, with similar items, including factors beyond the applicant's control and compelling reasons.

Compelling reasons and the length of the relationship

The key question in most Schedule 3 partner cases is whether there are compelling reasons not to apply the criteria. The length of the relationship, Australian citizen children, the sponsor's ties to Australia and the hardship of separation are relevant. A partner visa refused long relationship case under Schedule 3 needs evidence of why the couple cannot reasonably be expected to leave Australia and apply offshore. Our service page on Schedule 3 waivers and our article on the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver explain how compelling reasons are usually presented.

The Tribunal has accepted compelling reasons in long-term onshore cases. In Hou (Migration) [2020] AATA 6018, the application was made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held, after a lengthy period as an unlawful non-resident, and the reported issues included compelling reasons for not applying the criterion; the matter was remitted. In Hunt (Migration) [2021] AATA 1479, the reported issues were a long-term genuine relationship, an applicant who was not the holder of a substantive visa at the time of application, and an Australian citizen daughter; the refusal was set aside and remitted.

Applicants with a visa that carries a no further stay condition face a different but related problem. Our article on applying for a Subclass 820 visa with condition 8503 explains that issue, and our article on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa covers visitors who apply onshore.

Can a sponsorship limitation cause a refusal after years together?

Yes, a sponsorship limitation can cause a refusal after years together, because regulation 1.20J limits sponsors who have sponsored before or who were themselves sponsored as a partner, unless there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor. A partner visa refused long relationship decision on this ground has nothing to do with whether the relationship is genuine.

The limitation

In summary, regulation 1.20J provides that a person may be approved as a partner sponsor no more than twice, that a person who previously sponsored a partner cannot have another sponsorship approved until at least five years after the earlier visa application was made, and that a person who was sponsored as a partner cannot sponsor a partner until at least five years after their own visa application was made. Our guide on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explains how the dates are counted.

Why long relationships still qualify for the waiver

Regulation 1.20J(2) allows a sponsorship to be approved despite the limitation if there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor. Department policy lists examples, including a dependent child of the applicant and sponsor, and a new relationship that is longstanding. That makes length directly relevant. A partner visa refused long relationship decision under regulation 1.20J should be reviewed with evidence of the length of the current relationship, any children, and the hardship to the sponsor. Our service page on partner visa sponsorship limitations sets out how the firm approaches these matters.

In Bui (Migration) [2021] AATA 4894, the reported issues were a sponsorship limitation, two previous sponsorships, compelling reasons to waive the limitation, and a valid marriage and genuine long-term relationship; the refusal was set aside and remitted.

Can a partner visa be refused for health or character despite a genuine relationship?

Yes, a partner visa can be refused for health, character or police certificate reasons even when the Department accepts the relationship is genuine, because these are separate criteria that every applicant must meet. A partner visa refused long relationship decision on these grounds can feel especially unfair, because the couple has proved what they thought was the hard part.

Health

Partner visa applicants must meet health criteria. For some partner visas, the health requirement can be waived in certain circumstances, and the waiver considers factors such as the cost of treatment and the circumstances of the Australian sponsor and family. In 2100971 (Migration) [2024] AATA 335, the reported issues were that the applicant did not meet the health requirements, a lengthy relationship of six years, significant family connections in Australia, and that the cost of treatment was not significant; the refusal was set aside and remitted. The length of the relationship was part of the picture in that case.

Character and police certificates

Applicants must also meet character requirements. A refusal can follow from criminal history, from adverse information or from a failure to provide police certificates from every country where the applicant has lived for the required period. Long-term couples where the applicant has lived in several countries may struggle to obtain certificates, especially from countries with limited systems. A refusal for failure to provide a document is often curable at review if the document is obtained, so a partner visa refused long relationship decision on this ground should be reviewed with the missing certificates in hand. Character refusals under section 501 of the Migration Act follow a different path from ordinary partner refusals, and our visa cancellations page explains the firm's work on character matters.

Debts and other public interest criteria

PIC 4004 requires that the applicant has no outstanding debts to the Commonwealth, or has arrangements to repay them. Long-term onshore applicants sometimes have debts from earlier detention or from other Commonwealth programs. A partner visa refused long relationship decision on this ground may be resolved by repaying or arranging to repay the debt before the Tribunal decides.

Can I appeal a partner visa refused long relationship decision?

Yes, you can usually appeal a partner visa refused long relationship decision by applying to the Administrative Review Tribunal within 28 days after you are notified of the refusal, provided the decision is reviewable and the correct person applies. The ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024, and earlier Tribunal decisions are still useful guidance. Our guide to partner visa appeal options and our page on visa refusal appeals explain the wider process.

Who can apply for review

• Onshore refusals. For a refused Subclass 820 or Subclass 801 application, the visa applicant applies and must be physically in Australia when the review application is made.
• Subclass 309 refusals. The visa applicant applies. The Australian partner usually instructs the lawyer, supports the review and gives evidence.
• Subclass 300 refusals. The Australian sponsor applies. If the couple marry after the refusal and before the review is finally determined, and tell the Tribunal, the application is taken to also be a partner visa application on remittal. Our page on the Subclass 300 visa covers that visa.
• Subclass 100 refused while the applicant is outside Australia. There is no ART review of that decision.

The 28-day deadline

Section 347(3) of the Migration Act requires the review application to be made within 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. The time limit cannot be extended. A late application is not properly made, and the Tribunal has no power to hear it.

Notification rules matter. A decision sent by email is taken to be received at the end of the day it is transmitted. A decision sent by post is taken to be received 7 working days after the date of the letter, if it was posted within 3 working days. A decision handed over in person is received immediately. The 28 days runs from the day after notification.

The review application must also be accompanied by payment of a substantial application fee within the same 28 days, or by a request for a fee reduction on financial hardship grounds with at least 50% of the fee paid. If the fee is not paid in time, the application is not properly made. Where several family members were refused together, one combined application with one fee is usually possible. The decision notice should be attached if the applicant has it.

If your partner visa refused long relationship decision arrived recently, the deadline is the first thing to secure. Our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to have ready when you make contact.

What happens to my bridging visa after a partner visa refusal?

Your bridging visa usually continues if you lodge a valid ART review in time, because a Bridging A visa granted with a partner application generally ceases 35 days after the refusal if no review is lodged, but continues while a review is on foot. This is why the 28-day deadline matters so much in a partner visa refused long relationship case.

Under clause 010.511, a Bridging A visa granted with a partner application on or after 19 November 2016 ceases 35 days after the refusal decision if no review application is made. If a review is lodged in time, the bridging visa continues until 35 days after the Tribunal's decision, or remains in effect if the matter is remitted to the Department. A similar 35-day pattern applies to Bridging B and Bridging C visas. Our guides to Bridging visa A, bridging visas in Australia and work rights on the Subclass 820 bridging visa explain the conditions that apply while the review is pending.

Applicants who need to travel during the review need a Bridging visa B before leaving Australia. Long-term onshore applicants who hold a Bridging E visa should check the terms of their grant notice and obtain advice immediately, because different rules apply.

How does the ART assess a long relationship on review?

The ART assesses a long relationship by deciding the case again on the evidence available at the time of review, including new evidence that the delegate never saw, and it is not bound by the delegate's findings. This is the main reason a partner visa refused long relationship decision is often worth reviewing.

The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the decision maker

Under section 54 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, the Tribunal can exercise all the powers of the original decision maker. It considers the relationship as it exists when the Tribunal makes its decision. A couple who have continued their relationship since the refusal can show that continued history. Our article on what to expect at an ART review after a visa refusal explains the steps.

How length and history are weighed

The Tribunal weighs the length of the relationship as one part of the nature of the commitment, alongside the other aspects. A long relationship counts in the couple's favour, but the Tribunal will still examine the periods that troubled the delegate: separations, periods apart, inconsistent histories and earlier relationships. Oral evidence at the hearing is often decisive in a partner visa refused long relationship review. The applicant and sponsor may be questioned separately, and the consistency of their accounts carries significant weight.

The Tribunal can affirm the decision, 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. On remittal, the Department must reassess the remaining criteria, such as health and character, and is bound by the Tribunal's finding.

Procedural steps that matter

• Access to documents. Under section 362A, the applicant can request access to the documents the Department gave the Tribunal. This request should be made early, because those documents often reveal exactly what the delegate relied on.
• The Department's role. The Minister is a non-participating party, and the Department generally does not appear at the hearing.
• Attendance. If the applicant does not attend a scheduled hearing, the Tribunal can dismiss the application. Reinstatement must be sought within 28 days after notice of the dismissal.
• Written reasons. The Tribunal must give its decision with written reasons, and notify the applicant within 14 days of the decision.

What follows an unfavourable Tribunal decision

If the Tribunal affirms the refusal, the Minister has a personal, non-compellable power under section 351 to substitute a more favourable decision in the public interest. Separately, a court can review a Tribunal decision for legal error only, not on the merits. Neither of these is a substitute for presenting a complete case at the Tribunal, which is where a partner visa refused long relationship matter is normally won or lost. Our article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains what limits apply to new applications in Australia after a refusal.

What Tribunal decisions show about long relationships that were refused

Tribunal decisions show that refusals of long relationships are regularly set aside where the couple explains the history that concerned the delegate and supports it with evidence. The decisions below are published remittals, meaning the Tribunal set the refusal aside and sent the matter back to the Department. They are described only by their reported issues.

• Singh (Migration) [2018] AATA 5925. Genuine spousal relationship; sponsor financially supports the visa applicant; living in separate countries for past 10 years; widely recognised relationship.
• KAUR (Migration) [2019] AATA 3936. Genuine spousal relationship; seven years of cohabitation; benefit of oral evidence from applicant and sponsor separately; anonymous allegations.
• Restrepo (Migration) [2021] AATA 2558. Reconciled their relationship; high degree of companionship and emotional support; genuine married relationship at the time of application.
• Harris (Migration) [2018] AATA 4904. Genuine and continuing relationship; parties separated then reconciled; reapplied for partner visa; long distance relationship due to applicant's work.
• Mohan (Migration) [2024] AATA 813. Genuine and continuing relationship before death of sponsor; valid and long marriage, separation, sponsor's comparatively short other relationship and reconciliation.
• Pham (Migration) [2021] AATA 4350. False or misleading information in previous visitor visa application; answered "married" but separated at the time and later divorced; credible witness and evidence.
• Hou (Migration) [2020] AATA 6018. Application made more than 28 days after last substantive visa held; lengthy period as unlawful non-resident; compelling reasons for not applying criterion.
• Bui (Migration) [2021] AATA 4894. Sponsorship limitation; two previous sponsorships; compelling reasons to waive limitation; valid marriage and genuine long-term relationship.

Every case turns on its own facts, and these decisions do not predict the result of any other review. They show the kinds of issues the Tribunal has examined in partner visa refused long relationship matters, and that a careful presentation of the history can change the outcome.

Common mistakes after a partner visa refused long relationship decision

The most common mistakes after a partner visa refused long relationship decision are waiting too long, assuming the length of the relationship will speak for itself, and repeating the original evidence without addressing the reasons for refusal.

"We have been together for ten years, so the Tribunal will see it is genuine"

This is wrong. The Tribunal will examine the same issues that troubled the delegate. If the delegate refused because of a separation, an inconsistent history or a Schedule 3 criterion, the length of the relationship does not answer that concern. The review must address the actual reasons.

"We can lodge the review later, once we have gathered more evidence"

This is wrong. The review must be lodged, and the fee paid, within 28 days after notification. Evidence can be added after lodgement. The deadline cannot be extended.

"It is better not to mention the separation"

This is wrong. A separation that is hidden and later discovered damages credibility far more than one that is explained. The Tribunal can accept a reconciled relationship when it is explained honestly and supported by evidence, and many partner visa refused long relationship cases involve exactly that history.

"Lodging a fresh application is easier than review"

This is often wrong for onshore applicants. Section 48 of the Migration Act can prevent an applicant in Australia who has been refused a visa from making most new visa applications, and the partner visa may only be available onshore in limited circumstances. Review is usually the safer path after a partner visa refused long relationship decision onshore. Our article on hiring a lawyer after lodging your own application and our guide to getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer explain how to get a fresh assessment of the file.

How My Migration Lawyers handles partner visa refused long relationship reviews

My Migration Lawyers acts for couples whose partner visa was refused despite many years together, and the firm handles complex partner visa refused long relationship reviews, including cases involving separations and reconciliations, inconsistent visa histories, PIC 4020, earlier marriages, Schedule 3, sponsorship limitations and health or character criteria. The firm acts in many partner refusal matters of exactly this type and is equipped to handle them.

Our work on a partner visa refused long relationship review follows clear steps:

• Secure the deadline. We confirm the date of notification, calculate the last day for review, and lodge the ART application with the fee within the 28-day period, so that the right to review and the bridging visa are protected.
• Read the refusal closely. We identify every criterion the delegate found was not met, and separate relationship findings from non-relationship findings such as Schedule 3, sponsorship limitation, PIC 4020, health and character.
• Obtain the full record. We request the documents the Department gave the Tribunal and, where needed, the applicant's earlier visa applications, so that we can see what the delegate relied on and compare every date and answer.
• Map the relationship history. We build a clear timeline of the relationship from the beginning to today, including any periods apart, any separation and reconciliation, and any earlier relationships or marriages, and we check it against the documents.
• Review the couple's own evidence. The relationship statement is the couple's own account. We review it against the records, identify gaps and inconsistencies, and ask the couple to correct and confirm it. We review Form 888 statements from people who know the couple, and we identify what recent evidence is needed for each of the four aspects.
• Address the legal issues. Where the refusal turns on Schedule 3, sponsorship limitation, the validity of a marriage or PIC 4020, we prepare legal submissions on the criteria, the compelling reasons or circumstances, and the Tribunal decisions that apply.
• Prepare for the hearing. We prepare the applicant and sponsor for the questions the Tribunal is likely to ask about the periods that concerned the delegate, and we prepare witnesses where their evidence will help.
• After the decision. If the matter is remitted, we deal with the Department on the remaining criteria. If it is not, we advise on the options that remain.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers, see the firm's partner visa lawyers page, and read our explanation of what a visa appeal lawyer does. Our articles on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa, partner visa lawyer help versus doing it yourself, the difference between a migration agent and a lawyer for a partner visa and our main partner visa guide explain the wider context. Same-sex couples can read our page on the LGBTI partner visa, and applicants affected by violence in the relationship can read our page on family violence and partner visas.

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 long relationship matter is different, and no lawyer can promise an outcome. What My Migration Lawyers can do is make sure the review is lodged in time, that every reason for refusal is addressed, and that your long history together is presented to the Tribunal clearly, consistently and with the evidence it needs.

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