Partner Visa Refused as a Sham Relationship

A partner visa refused sham decision is one of the most distressing letters a couple can receive. If your refusal letter says the Department believes your relationship was entered into to obtain a visa, the decision is reviewable in most cases. You can apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) within 28 days of being notified, and the Tribunal decides the matter again on the evidence before it at the time of review. This guide explains what a partner visa refused sham finding actually means in law, how case officers reach it, how it connects to public interest criterion 4020, and how the finding is answered at the Tribunal. It is written for couples who still have time to act. If you are reading this after a refusal, the first thing to check is the date you were notified, because the review deadline cannot be extended. My Migration Lawyers acts in partner visa refusal reviews before the ART, including refusals where the Department has said or implied that the relationship is not real.

What does it mean when a partner visa is refused as a sham?

A partner visa refused as a sham means the Department was not satisfied that the couple are in a genuine and continuing relationship, and it formed the view that the relationship was created or presented mainly so that one person could obtain a visa. The word "sham" rarely appears in the legislation. It appears in everyday language, in some decision records and in the way couples describe what happened to them. In practice, a partner visa refused sham decision is a refusal of a Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309, Subclass 100 or Subclass 300 application in which the decision maker doubted the relationship itself, not just the paperwork.

This is different from a refusal for weak evidence. In a weak evidence refusal, the decision maker accepts that the couple may well be together but finds that the documents do not prove it. In a partner visa refused sham case, the decision maker usually goes further. The decision record may say the relationship is "contrived", "one of convenience", "entered into for migration purposes" or "not genuine". It may refer to an allegation from a third party, a home visit, or answers in an interview that did not match. Our general guide to why partner visas get refused covers the full range of refusal grounds. This article focuses on the refusal where the relationship itself was disbelieved.

Why the label matters for your next step

The label matters because it changes how the review must be run. A refusal for thin evidence is often answered with more documents. A partner visa refused sham finding is answered with credible evidence, consistency and a careful response to every piece of adverse information the decision maker relied on. More paper alone rarely answers a credibility finding. The Tribunal must be persuaded that the people in front of it are telling the truth about their relationship.

Who is affected by a partner visa refused sham decision

Both partners are affected. The visa applicant loses the visa application and, if onshore, may lose lawful status after the bridging visa ends. The sponsor is affected too, because the sponsor's own account of the relationship has also been disbelieved. Where the refusal includes a finding that false information was given, there can be consequences for future applications by the applicant and by members of the applicant's family unit. These consequences are explained later in this article.

Is there a separate "sham relationship" criterion for partner visas?

No. There is no criterion in the Migration Act 1958 or the Migration Regulations 1994 that says a partner visa must be refused because a relationship is a "sham". A partner visa refused sham finding works through the ordinary relationship criteria for each visa. Those criteria require the applicant to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor, and the meaning of spouse and de facto partner is set by sections 5F and 5CB of the Migration Act.

This point is not academic. Because there is no stand alone sham criterion, the decision maker cannot simply announce that a relationship is a sham and stop there. The decision maker must apply the statutory test, consider all of the circumstances listed in the Regulations, and give reasons that engage with the evidence. When a partner visa refused sham decision skips steps, relies on one allegation, or ignores evidence that points the other way, that is often the first place a review begins.

Spouse relationships under section 5F

Under section 5F, two people are in a married relationship if they are validly married, have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, have a relationship that is genuine and continuing, and live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. A valid marriage certificate proves only the first element. A partner visa refused sham decision for a married couple is almost always a finding that the second or third element was not met: the decision maker did not accept the mutual commitment, or did not accept that the relationship is genuine. Our guide to partner visa relationship evidence explains the kinds of material that usually support each element.

De facto relationships under section 5CB

Under section 5CB, a de facto relationship requires a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, a genuine and continuing relationship, living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis, and the couple must not be related by family. There is also a 12 month relationship requirement before the application in many cases, with exceptions. Our articles on the de facto partner visa and the 12 month rule and on whether you really need 12 months of de facto relationship for a Subclass 820 visa explain these rules. In a de facto partner visa refused sham case, the decision maker often doubts both the commitment and the claimed start date of the relationship.

How the genuine and continuing relationship test works in a partner visa refused sham case

The genuine and continuing relationship test requires the decision maker to consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, and regulation 1.15A(3) for spouses, and regulation 1.09A(3) for de facto partners, direct attention to 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. Every partner visa refused sham decision should show that these four aspects were actually weighed. They are aspects of one relationship, assessed together. They are not separate tests that each must be passed, and they are not separate statements that the couple must write.

The couple gives one relationship statement each, telling the story of their relationship in their own words. Our guide to the partner visa relationship statement explains how that account is usually structured. The four aspects are then assessed from the whole of the evidence: the statements, the documents, the forms, any interview answers and the supporting Form 888 statements from people who know the couple.

The financial aspects of the relationship

The decision maker looks at joint ownership of property, joint liabilities, pooling of money, the basis on which the couple share day to day costs, and any financial support between them. In a partner visa refused sham case, the officer may have treated a lack of joint finances as a sign of a convenience arrangement. Some couples keep finances separate for cultural, practical or legal reasons. The question is whether the financial picture fits the relationship the couple describe, not whether it matches a template.

The nature of the household

This aspect covers living arrangements, shared care of children, shared responsibility for housework, and who does what in the home. Home visits by Department officers are aimed squarely at this aspect. If a partner visa refused sham finding relied on what an officer saw or did not see at the home, the officer's notes become central evidence on review.

The social aspects of the relationship

The decision maker considers whether the couple present as a couple to friends, family and the wider community, whether they socialise together, and whether they have made joint plans. Some couples have reasons to keep the relationship private from certain people, for example where families disapprove or where the couple is in a same sex relationship in a hostile environment. Our page on LGBTI partner visas touches on how that context can affect social evidence. The Department's own instruction on de facto relationships tells delegates to take into account the extent to which the laws or traditions of the applicant's home country may discourage a couple from openly admitting the relationship. A partner visa refused sham decision that treats discretion as deception without considering the reason is open to challenge.

The nature of the commitment

The final aspect looks at the length of the relationship, how long the couple have lived together, the degree of companionship and emotional support, and whether the couple see the relationship as long term. Knowledge of each other's background and daily life is often tested here. Officers frequently rely on gaps in that knowledge when reaching a partner visa refused sham conclusion.

Time of application and time of decision

Most partner visa criteria must be met at the time of application, and the relationship must continue at the time of decision. This matters on review. The Tribunal decides on the evidence before it at the time of the review, so evidence of the relationship continuing after the refusal is relevant. A couple who have lived together for a further year since the refusal can show that history to the Tribunal. In some subclasses, the couple must still show that the relationship was genuine at the time of application, so later evidence supports the earlier period but does not replace it.

Where public interest criterion 4020 fits into a partner visa refused sham decision

Public interest criterion 4020 is a separate criterion from the relationship test, and it applies when the decision maker finds that the applicant gave, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular. A partner visa refused sham decision does not always include a PIC 4020 finding. When it does, the consequences are more serious, and the review must deal with both findings.

The relationship finding asks whether the relationship is genuine. The PIC 4020 finding asks whether false information or a bogus document was given in relation to the application, or in relation to a visa held in the 12 months before the application was made. A couple can fail the relationship test without any PIC 4020 finding. A couple can also meet the relationship test and still face a PIC 4020 issue, for example where a previous marriage or a previous visa application was not declared. Our Form 80 guide explains why complete and accurate personal particulars matter so much.

Purposeful falsity, not innocent mistakes

The Department's own procedural instruction on PIC 4020 records that the Full Federal Court in Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 held that the information must have the quality of "purposeful falsity". A visa cannot be refused under PIC 4020 where the applicant can explain an innocent mistake in a document or information provided by them or on their behalf. The applicant does not need to be shown to have known personally about the falsity, but the falsity itself must be purposeful. This is often the most important legal point in a partner visa refused sham case that includes a PIC 4020 finding, because many alleged false statements turn out to be translation errors, misunderstood questions or honest differences in recollection.

The three year non-grant period

If a visa is refused because PIC 4020(1) is not met, PIC 4020(2) then operates in later applications. A later visa that has PIC 4020 as a criterion cannot be granted if the applicant, or a member of the applicant's family unit, was refused a visa under PIC 4020(1) in the period starting three years before the later application was made. That is why a partner visa refused sham decision with a PIC 4020 finding should not be left unchallenged without careful advice, even if the couple are considering a fresh application instead. A refusal that stands can affect what happens next.

Identity findings and the ten year period

A separate part of the criterion, PIC 4020(2A), requires the decision maker to be satisfied of the applicant's identity. A refusal for failing PIC 4020(2A) leads to a ten year non-grant period under PIC 4020(2B), and the Department's instruction states there is no waiver for that identity period. Identity findings are less common in a partner visa refused sham matter, but they do arise where documents carry different names or dates of birth.

The waiver

PIC 4020(4) allows the decision maker to waive PIC 4020(1) and PIC 4020(2) if satisfied that compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, justify the grant of the visa. The interests of the visa applicant alone are not the focus. In partner matters, the Australian sponsor and any Australian children are often central to the waiver argument. The waiver does not cure a failed relationship finding. The relationship must still be shown to be genuine.

Information given by the sponsor

The Department's instruction also notes that information a sponsor gives in support of the sponsorship is usually given by the sponsor on the sponsor's own behalf. The mere fact that the visa applicant allowed the sponsor to provide documents may not be enough for PIC 4020(1) to apply to the applicant. Whether the applicant "gave, or caused to be given" the information is a question of fact. In a partner visa refused sham case where the alleged false statement came from the sponsor, this distinction can be important.

How do case officers reach a sham finding?

Case officers reach a sham finding by combining several pieces of information, none of which may be decisive alone, into a conclusion that the relationship is not what the couple claim. Understanding exactly what the officer relied on is the first step in answering a partner visa refused sham decision. The decision record usually lists the information the officer considered, and the Department's file often contains more detail than the decision record discloses.

The most common sources of adverse information are set out below. Each one can be answered, but only if it is identified accurately and dealt with honestly.

Interview inconsistencies

Many partner visa refused sham decisions rely on interviews where the applicant and sponsor were questioned separately. Officers ask about how the couple met, the proposal or decision to live together, daily routines, family members, the layout of the home, recent events and future plans. Where answers differ, the officer may conclude that the couple do not share a life.

Not every difference is significant. People remember dates differently. Nervous people answer badly. Interviews conducted through interpreters can lose meaning. Questions can be ambiguous. A careful review looks at the actual questions asked and the actual answers given, often through the recording or the officer's notes, rather than relying on the officer's summary. It also looks at what the couple agreed on, which decision records sometimes understate.

Home visits

Department officers sometimes attend the couple's home without notice. They may look for evidence that both people live there: clothing, toiletries, shared bedrooms, mail. They may speak to neighbours. A partner visa refused sham finding based on a home visit often turns on what the officer recorded and on whether the couple were given a proper chance to respond to it. A visit on a day when one partner was travelling for work, or staying with a sick relative, can create a misleading picture. The answer is evidence of where that partner actually was, given honestly.

Anonymous allegations and dob-ins

The Department receives allegations from members of the public, often anonymously. These may come from former partners, family members who oppose the relationship, or people with other motives. An anonymous allegation is information. It is not proof. A partner visa refused sham decision that treats an anonymous allegation as established fact, without testing it against the rest of the evidence, is vulnerable on review.

At the same time, couples must understand that an allegation cannot simply be dismissed by calling it malicious. It must be answered with evidence. Where the source is likely known, for example a former spouse in a bitter separation, the context of the allegation can be relevant. Where the content is specific, the specific claims must be addressed one by one.

Undisclosed introduction agencies and how the couple met

Some couples meet through introduction agencies, matchmakers, family arrangements or online platforms. None of these is unlawful, and none of them makes a relationship a sham. The problem arises when the way the couple met is not disclosed, or is described differently in different places. If the Department later learns that the couple met through an agency that was not mentioned, it may treat the omission as concealment. One of the decisions discussed later in this article involved exactly this issue. Honest disclosure of how a relationship began, even if the beginning was unconventional, is always the safer course.

Payment allegations

Some partner visa refused sham decisions rest on an allegation that money was paid for the relationship or for sponsorship. Money transfers between partners are common and often legitimate: support for family, contributions to a wedding, help with living costs while apart. The question is what the transfers were for. A review should explain each relevant transfer with documents and with the couple's own consistent account. Arranged marriages commonly involve family financial arrangements, and the Tribunal has accepted many arranged marriages as genuine where the evidence of the relationship itself was strong.

Migration history and the timing of the relationship

Officers look at the visa history of the applicant. A relationship that began shortly before a visa expired, after a previous refusal, or after a protection visa or student visa application was refused, may attract suspicion. A previous partner sponsorship or a previous partner visa can also be relevant, and sponsors may face sponsorship limitations if they have sponsored before. Our article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa in Australia explains those rules.

Timing alone does not prove a relationship is a sham. Many genuine couples apply when they do because a visa is ending. Our guides to moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa and to applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explain the legitimate pathways. Where an applicant had no substantive visa at the time of application, the Schedule 3 criteria for unlawful applicants may also apply, which our Schedule 3 waiver service addresses.

Quick marriages, age differences and limited time together

A short courtship, a large age difference, a language barrier or very little time spent together in person can each lead an officer towards a partner visa refused sham conclusion. None of these factors is a legal bar. The Tribunal has remitted many matters involving age differences, arranged marriages and quick timelines where the evidence before it showed a genuine commitment. The task on review is to show why these features exist in this particular relationship, and why they are consistent with a genuine one.

What procedural fairness requires before and after a partner visa refused sham decision

Procedural fairness requires that a visa applicant is told about adverse information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusal, and is given a real opportunity to respond. Before refusal, the Department usually does this through a natural justice letter under section 57 of the Migration Act. Our guide to the section 57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explains how that process works. Requests for more information are often made under section 56, explained in our article on responding to a section 56 request.

In a partner visa refused sham case, it is worth checking whether the couple were actually told the substance of the allegation before the refusal. Some decision records rely on information that was never put to the applicant, or was put in such general terms that a meaningful response was not possible. At the Tribunal, the review is a fresh decision, so the remedy is usually to put the information fully before the Tribunal and answer it there.

Getting the Department's file

The applicant may request access to the documents the Department gave the Tribunal, under section 362A of the Migration Act. This request should be made early. The file may contain the interview record, home visit notes, the allegation in redacted form, and the officer's working notes. In a partner visa refused sham matter, the review cannot be prepared properly without knowing what is in that file. A separate request to the Department under freedom of information laws may also be useful in some cases.

Information that cannot be disclosed

Some information, including some third party allegations, may be the subject of a non-disclosure certificate or may be withheld to protect the source. Even then, the substance of adverse information relied on is usually put to the applicant in some form. One remitted decision listed later in this article involved a non-disclosure certificate and an anonymous allegation. Where information is withheld, the response must be framed around what is known, and the Tribunal can be asked about the weight it should give to untested material.

Why honesty matters more than ever after a partner visa refused sham finding

Honesty matters more than ever because a partner visa refused sham finding is, at its core, a finding that the couple were not believed, and the only lasting answer to disbelief is truthful, consistent evidence. Any attempt to hide, change or invent facts will make the position worse and may create a PIC 4020 problem that did not exist before. My Migration Lawyers never advises clients to conceal facts, and will not run a review on a version of events the clients know to be untrue.

This does not mean couples must accept every allegation. It means that the response must be accurate. If something in the original application was wrong, the right course is usually to identify it, explain how it happened, and correct it. The Tribunal is far more likely to accept a couple who openly acknowledge an error than a couple whose story changes each time it is tested. If the relationship has since ended, that also must be disclosed, and different options may apply. Our article on what happens to a Subclass 820 application if the relationship breaks down explains those options, and our family violence partner visa page explains the special provisions where family violence has occurred.

What people get wrong about a partner visa refused sham decision

Several common beliefs about a partner visa refused sham decision are wrong, and acting on them can cost couples their review.

"A sham finding means we can never be together in Australia"

This is wrong. A partner visa refused sham decision is a decision about one application on the evidence available at the time. The Tribunal makes its own decision on the evidence before it, and it can set aside the refusal and remit the application. Where PIC 4020 was not engaged, a later application may also be possible in some circumstances, subject to any section 48 bar and other rules. The decision is serious, but it is not a permanent finding about the couple's future.

"The Tribunal will just read the Department's file and agree"

This is wrong. The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision maker and makes a fresh decision. It hears from the applicant and sponsor directly, often separately, and it can accept evidence the Department never saw. Our article on what to expect at an ART review after a visa is refused explains the process.

"We should keep our answers short so we do not contradict ourselves"

This is wrong. Short, guarded answers often look rehearsed. Credibility is built through natural detail that only people who share a life would know. The couple should prepare by understanding the issues and reviewing their own documents, not by memorising a script. Rehearsed scripts tend to produce exactly the identical, unnatural answers that make decision makers suspicious.

"Admitting a mistake will make things worse"

This is wrong in most cases. Where the earlier application contained an error, the Tribunal will usually find it anyway. An honest explanation of how the error happened, supported by evidence, is what allows a decision maker to find there was no purposeful falsity. Concealing the error is what turns a mistake into a PIC 4020 problem.

"If the allegation is anonymous, it does not count"

This is wrong. An anonymous allegation is untested, and its weight may be limited, but the Tribunal can consider it. It must be answered with evidence. The strongest response to an anonymous allegation is usually a body of independent, verifiable evidence that makes the allegation implausible.

"We can just lodge a new application instead of seeking review"

This is often wrong for onshore applicants. Section 48 of the Migration Act limits which visas a person in Australia can apply for after a refusal, the bridging visa will end 35 days after the refusal if no review is lodged in time, and a person without a substantive visa may then face the Schedule 3 criteria. A fresh application also starts again before the same Department, with the sham finding and any PIC 4020 finding on the record. Our guide to partner visa refused appeal options sets out the choices.

Can you challenge a partner visa refused sham decision at the ART?

Yes. Most partner visa refused sham decisions can be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal, which replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. The application must be made within 28 days after the day the applicant is notified of the decision, or within 7 days if the applicant is in immigration detention on the day of notification. This time limit cannot be extended. A late application is not properly made, and the Tribunal has no power to hear it.

The review fee is substantial, and it must be paid within the same 28 day period, or a request for a fee reduction must be made with at least half of the fee paid, for the application to be properly made. The application should include a copy of the decision notice if the applicant has it.

When the 28 days start

The 28 days run from the day after notification. If the decision was sent by email, the applicant is taken to have received it at the end of the day it was sent. If it was sent by post, the applicant is taken to have received it 7 working days after the date of the letter, if it was posted within 3 working days. If it was handed over in person, notification is immediate. Couples should not wait to see whether a letter arrives. The date on the decision is the date to act on.

Who applies for review

Who applies depends on the visa refused:

• Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 refused onshore. The visa applicant applies for review and must be physically present in Australia when the review application is made. Our Subclass 820 visa page and our guide to Subclass 820 versus Subclass 801 explain the two stages.
• Subclass 309 refused offshore. The visa applicant applies for review. The Australian partner usually instructs, supports the review and gives evidence. See our Subclass 309 visa page.
• Subclass 300 refused. The sponsor applies for review. See our Subclass 300 visa page. If the couple marry after the refusal and before the review is finally decided, and notify the Tribunal, the application can also be treated as a partner visa application if the matter is remitted.
• Subclass 100 refused while the applicant is outside Australia. There is no ART review for this decision.

Where family members were refused together, a combined review application attracts one fee.

Your bridging visa while the review runs

For onshore applicants, lodging the review in time is also what preserves lawful status. A Bridging A visa granted with the partner application usually ceases 35 days after the refusal if no review is lodged. If a review is lodged in time, the bridging visa continues while the review is pending and ceases 35 days after the Tribunal's decision, or remains in effect if the matter is remitted. Our guides to the Bridging A visa, to bridging visas in Australia and to work rights on a bridging visa while waiting for a Subclass 820 explain the detail. If a partner visa refused sham decision has just arrived, the 35 day period and the 28 day review deadline are running at the same time.

How a partner visa refused sham finding is answered at the ART

A partner visa refused sham finding is answered at the ART by identifying every reason the decision maker gave, testing every piece of adverse information, and presenting consistent, credible and independent evidence that the relationship is genuine and continuing. The Tribunal is not bound by the Department's view of the evidence. It considers the material before it at the time of review, including new evidence the Department never saw.

Step one: read the decision record closely

The decision record is the map of the review. Each adverse finding should be listed: the interview answers that differed, the home visit observations, the allegation, the financial concerns, the PIC 4020 finding if there is one. Couples are often surprised to see how much of a partner visa refused sham decision rests on a small number of points. Each point needs an answer.

Step two: obtain and test the adverse information

The Department's file should be requested early. Where the officer summarised interview answers, the review should check whether the summary is accurate. Where an allegation is relied on, the review should identify what it actually says, what can be verified, and what is speculation. Where home visit notes are relied on, the review should check what was recorded, who was present and what explanations were given at the time.

Step three: give one consistent account

The applicant and the sponsor each give their own relationship statement, in their own words. My Migration Lawyers reviews those statements against the forms, the interview record and the documents, identifies any gap or inconsistency, and asks the couple to correct and confirm their own account. The firm never writes the couple's story for them. The statements are the clients' own evidence. What the firm does is make sure that the evidence is complete, that it addresses every adverse finding, and that it does not contradict itself.

Step four: explain inconsistencies honestly

Where there was a real inconsistency, it should be explained, not ignored. Good explanations are specific. "We were nervous" explains little. "The officer asked when we moved in together, and my husband gave the date we signed the lease while I gave the date we actually started staying there most nights, which was about six weeks earlier" explains a great deal, especially when the lease and other documents support it. The Department's own PIC 4020 instruction accepts that an innocent mistake does not meet the purposeful falsity standard.

Step five: independent witnesses and Form 888 statements

Evidence from people outside the relationship is often decisive in a partner visa refused sham review. Family members, friends, employers, religious leaders, neighbours and others who have seen the couple's life together can give Form 888 statements and, in many cases, oral evidence at the hearing. Our guides to Form 888 and who can make one and to Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explain what these statements should contain. A witness who can speak from first hand knowledge, and who can be tested by the Tribunal, carries far more weight than a generic letter.

Step six: current evidence of the continuing relationship

Because the Tribunal decides on the evidence at the time of review, evidence of the relationship since the refusal is relevant. Joint leases, shared bills, joint bank accounts, travel together, photographs at family events, messages, and evidence of shared plans can all show that the relationship has continued. Our partner visa document checklist, our 820 partner visa evidence checklist and our guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship list the categories commonly used.

Step seven: preparing for the hearing

At the hearing, the Tribunal member usually questions the applicant and the sponsor, often separately, and may hear from witnesses. Preparation means understanding the issues, reviewing one's own documents and statements, and being ready to give honest, natural answers. It does not mean memorising answers. If the applicant does not attend a scheduled hearing, the Tribunal can dismiss the application, and reinstatement must be sought within 28 days of the notice of dismissal. Our page on the visa appeal lawyer role explains what representation at the review involves.

What Tribunal decisions show about sham and false information findings

Published Tribunal decisions show that refusals based on doubts about the relationship, anonymous allegations and alleged false information are regularly set aside and remitted when the evidence at review answers the concerns. The following decisions were remittals, meaning the Tribunal set aside the refusal and sent the matter back to the Department for reconsideration. The descriptions below are limited to the issues reported for each decision. They are not My Migration Lawyers' cases, and every matter turns on its own facts.

• KAUR (Migration) [2019] AATA 3936. A Subclass 820 matter reported as involving a genuine spousal relationship, seven years of cohabitation, the benefit of oral evidence from the applicant and sponsor separately, and anonymous allegations.
• Yeung (Migration) [2020] AATA 4137. A Subclass 820 matter returned to the Tribunal after a Federal Circuit Court remittal, reported as involving a de facto partner or spouse, incorrect information in the visa application and Department interviews, and a meeting through an introduction agency that was not disclosed.
• 1727299 (Migration) [2019] AATA 3875. A Subclass 309 matter reported as involving a genuine spousal relationship, credible witnesses, the applicant's general migration history, and the motivation for entering the relationship.
• PALASIT (MIGRATION) [2026] ARTA 1914. A Subclass 820 matter reported as involving false or misleading information, a previous relationship that was not declared, the question of an element of fraud or deception, and the discretion to waive the criterion.
• 1707512 (Migration) [2018] AATA 5003. A Subclass 820 matter reported as involving insufficient evidence of the relationship, conflicting evidence about the relationship, adverse information, and sham marriage claims.
• 2008553 (Migration) [2024] AATA 2749. A Subclass 309 matter reported as involving a genuine spousal relationship, limited knowledge of the partner's personal circumstances, evidence of events after the visa application, and allegations from an anonymous source.
• Pham (Migration) [2021] AATA 4350. A Subclass 820 matter reported as involving false or misleading information in a previous visitor visa application, where the applicant answered "married" while separated and later divorced, and credible witness evidence.
• Koppens (Migration) [2023] AATA 904. A Subclass 820 matter reported as involving a genuine and continuing relationship, a quick timeline between the start of the relationship and the application, and extensive current evidence and submissions provided to the Tribunal.

These decisions illustrate patterns rather than predict outcomes. They show that the Tribunal takes oral evidence seriously, that it weighs anonymous allegations against the whole of the evidence, that it distinguishes between purposeful falsity and other explanations, and that current evidence of a continuing relationship can be significant in a partner visa refused sham review.

What happens after the ART decides a partner visa refused sham review

After the hearing, the Tribunal gives a written decision with reasons, and it must notify the parties within 14 days of making the decision. If the Tribunal is satisfied the relationship criterion is met, it usually sets aside the refusal and remits the application to the Department with a direction that the criterion is taken to be satisfied. The Department is bound by that finding, but it must then assess the remaining criteria, such as health, character and, where relevant, PIC 4020, before deciding whether to grant the visa.

If the Tribunal affirms the refusal, 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. Court review is also available for legal error in the Tribunal's decision, but it does not reconsider the facts. My Migration Lawyers does not act in court proceedings. These limits are why the Tribunal stage is usually the most important opportunity to answer a partner visa refused sham finding, and why it should be prepared properly from the start. Our pages on visa refusal appeals and on getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer explain how the firm reviews a refusal before a decision is made about next steps.

How My Migration Lawyers handles partner visa refused sham matters

My Migration Lawyers acts in partner visa refused sham matters at the Administrative Review Tribunal, including refusals based on interview inconsistencies, home visits, anonymous allegations, undisclosed introduction agencies, payment allegations, migration history and PIC 4020 findings. These are complex cases. The firm acts in many partner visa refusal reviews of exactly this type and is equipped to handle the credibility and integrity issues they raise.

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

• Deadline and status check. We confirm the date of notification, calculate the 28 day review deadline, confirm who must apply, and check the bridging visa position so that lawful status is protected.
• Lodging the review. We prepare and lodge the review application with the decision notice, and make sure the fee is paid within the time limit so that the application is properly made.
• The Department's file. We request access to the documents the Department gave the Tribunal, and where useful seek further records, so that we know exactly what the officer relied on, including interview records, home visit notes and allegations.
• Issue analysis. We list every adverse finding in the decision record, identify which findings concern the relationship test and which concern PIC 4020, and decide which legal arguments will be run, including purposeful falsity and the PIC 4020(4) waiver where relevant.
• The couple's own evidence. We review each partner's relationship statement against the forms, the interview record and the documents, identify gaps and inconsistencies, and ask the couple to correct and confirm their own account. We never write a story for clients, and we never advise anyone to hide or change facts.
• Independent evidence. We identify witnesses who can speak from first hand knowledge, review their Form 888 statements, and gather current evidence of the continuing relationship.
• Written submissions. We prepare submissions that apply section 5F or section 5CB, and regulation 1.15A(3) or regulation 1.09A(3), to the evidence, answer each adverse finding, and address PIC 4020 where it arises.
• Hearing preparation and representation. We explain the hearing process, help each witness understand the issues, and represent the applicant at the hearing.
• After the decision. If the matter is remitted, we deal with the Department on the remaining criteria. If it is not, we explain the limited options that remain.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers, see how the firm approaches partner visa lawyer work in Australia, and read our guide on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa. If you lodged your own application and it was refused, our article on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own visa application explains how the firm takes over a matter, and our guide to Form 956 and 956A explains how a representative is appointed. If you already have a representative and want to move, see how to change your immigration lawyer in Australia. Our partner visa lawyers page sets out the full range of partner work the firm does, and our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to prepare when a deadline is close.

My Migration Lawyers acts for partner visa refused sham 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. If you are comparing advisers in your city, our guides to choosing a partner visa lawyer in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta may help.

Every partner visa refused sham 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 adverse finding is identified and answered, that your evidence is honest, consistent and complete, and that you understand what the Tribunal will be looking for.

Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your partner visa refused sham decision reviewed before the deadline passes. You can also call us on 1300 040 300.