Partner Visa Relationship Statements

Partner visa relationship statements are the couple's own written account of how the relationship began, developed and operates today. Case officers do not read partner visa relationship statements in isolation. They test each statement against the forms, the documents, the Department's own records and, in many cases, the answers both partners give at interview or at a Tribunal hearing.

That testing process is what decides whether partner visa relationship statements help or harm an application. A well written statement that conflicts with a travel record, a lease or an answer in an earlier visa application will be read as a credibility problem, not as good writing. This article explains how the Department and the Administrative Review Tribunal actually test the statement, what each cross-check looks for, how inconsistencies are raised with the applicant, and how a statement should be structured so that it holds up. For the wider legal framework, the partner visa guide to Subclass 820, 801, 309, 100 and 300 sets out every stage of the process.

What are partner visa relationship statements?

Partner visa relationship statements are the written accounts that couples give the Department of Home Affairs to explain the history and current nature of their relationship. People search for the plural term, but each partner visa application carries one relationship statement. It is the couple's own account in their own words, and it sits alongside the documentary evidence and the Form 888 statements from friends and family.

A common error is to think that the four assessed aspects of a relationship each need their own statement. They do not. Regulation 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994 lists 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. Regulation 1.09A(3) lists the same four matters for de facto relationships. These are matters the decision maker must consider. They are not documents. The relationship statement is one document that addresses those matters as part of one coherent account, supported by the evidence that proves the relationship is genuine.

Partner visa relationship statements matter because the legal test is about a real relationship, not about paperwork. Section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 requires a married couple to have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, a genuine and continuing relationship, and to live together or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. Section 5CB sets out the equivalent test for de facto partners. The complete guide to the Subclass 820 partner visa explains how these definitions sit within the visa criteria. The statement is the applicant's best opportunity to explain, in context, how the relationship meets that test. It is also the document most likely to be quoted back to the couple if something does not match.

A separate live article explains how to write a partner visa relationship statement, with examples. This article deals with a different question: what happens to partner visa relationship statements after lodgement, when the decision maker starts checking them.

How do case officers test partner visa relationship statements?

Case officers test partner visa relationship statements by comparing them with every other source of information about the couple and asking whether the whole picture is consistent, detailed and credible. The statement is not assessed on its own merits as a piece of writing. It is assessed as one piece of evidence among many.

The legal starting point is that the decision maker must consider all the circumstances of the relationship. The Department's procedural instruction on spouse and married relationships states that, for Subclass 820, 801, 309 and 100 applications, the decision maker must have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship, including the four matters in regulation 1.15A(3), and must decide the weight to give each of them. The instruction also states that the assessment is not a count of how many matters are satisfied. It is an overall judgement.

In practice, this means that case officers read partner visa relationship statements with three questions in mind:

• Does the statement match the forms? Dates of meeting, commitment, cohabitation and marriage, addresses and previous relationships must align with the answers in the online application and the sponsorship.
• Does the statement match the documents? Leases, bank records, bills, photographs, travel bookings and messages should confirm the events described, at the times described.
• Does the statement match what the Department already knows? Movement records, earlier visa applications, previous sponsorships and declarations to other government bodies are all on file or can be checked.

Where the answer to each question is yes, the statement adds weight to the application. Where it is no, the statement becomes the starting point for a request for information, an interview, a natural justice letter under section 57 or a refusal. The same testing happens again, and often more intensely, if the matter goes to the Tribunal. That is why partner visa relationship statements should be written to be checked, not merely to be read.

The Subclass 820 onshore partner visa and the offshore Subclass 309 visa use the same relationship test, so the cross-checks described below apply to both. The Partner Visa Lawyers page explains how the firm acts across the partner visa program.

What are partner visa relationship statements cross-checked against?

Partner visa relationship statements are cross-checked against the application form answers, Form 80, the Form 888 statements, the documentary evidence across the four aspects, travel and movement records, and the couple's previous visa applications and government declarations. Each source tests a different part of the statement.

The application form answers

The online application, lodged through an ImmiAccount, asks direct questions about the relationship. The paper Form 47SP, which can now only be used where the Department has invited a paper application, shows the type of questions asked: when the couple first met and where, when they committed to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others, whether they have lived separately and apart since that commitment and why, and whether either partner has been married or in a de facto relationship before. The sponsorship asks the sponsor parallel questions.

These answers are short and precise. Partner visa relationship statements are long and narrative. The risk is obvious: a narrative date that differs from a form date by months, a first meeting place described differently, or a period of living apart that appears in the statement but was answered "No" in the form. Each of those differences is visible to the case officer on the first read. Section 101 of the Migration Act requires an application form to be filled in so that all questions are answered and no incorrect answers are given. The statement cannot quietly correct a form answer. If a form answer is wrong, it must be corrected formally, which is discussed later in this article.

Form 80 personal particulars

Where the Department requests it, Form 80 collects personal particulars in detail: residential addresses, employment history, travel history, family members and previous relationships. The Form 80 guide explains the form itself. For the purposes of testing partner visa relationship statements, Form 80 matters because it is a second, independent record of where each person lived and worked, and when.

If the statement says the couple moved in together in a particular month, the residential address history in Form 80 should show the same address from the same time. If the statement says the applicant left a job to relocate to be with the sponsor, the employment history should show that change. Inconsistency between Form 80 and partner visa relationship statements is one of the most common problems found on file review, and it is almost always the product of different people filling in different documents at different times without comparing them.

Form 888 statements from witnesses

Form 888 statements are supporting statements from people who know the couple. They are not statutory declarations. Their value lies in independent confirmation of the relationship, but that value depends on consistency. A witness who says they met the couple as a couple at a wedding in one year, when the statement records the couple as having met the following year, has not corroborated the relationship. The witness has created a conflict.

Case officers read Form 888 statements against partner visa relationship statements for three things: whether the witness's account of when and how they knew the couple fits the couple's own chronology, whether the witness describes the couple as living together and presenting as a couple at the times the statement claims, and whether several witnesses describe the same events in identical words. Identical wording suggests the statements were not written by the witnesses, which reduces their weight.

Documentary evidence across the four aspects

The documentary evidence is the most direct test of partner visa relationship statements. The procedural instruction lists the kinds of evidence relevant to each aspect: joint ownership of assets, joint liabilities, pooling of finances and the basis of sharing household expenses for the financial aspects; living arrangements, joint leases, utilities and correspondence at the same address for the household; representations to others, declarations to government bodies and joint social activities for the social aspects; and duration, cohabitation, companionship and long-term intention for the commitment.

Every factual claim in the statement should have a matching document or a reasonable explanation for why none exists. If the statement says the couple share rent equally, the bank records should show it. If the statement says the couple travelled together to meet the applicant's family, there should be bookings or photographs from that trip. Where documents contradict the statement, the documents usually win. The evidence checklist for Subclass 820 applications and the partner visa document checklist set out the categories of documents in more detail.

Travel and movement records

The Department holds records of each person's arrivals in and departures from Australia. It can see when the applicant entered, on which visa, and every time either partner left and returned. Partner visa relationship statements that describe the couple spending a period together in Australia, when movement records show one partner was overseas, will be questioned. The same applies to claims of a holiday overseas that do not match departure dates.

This cross-check is mechanical and unforgiving. It does not depend on the case officer's view of the relationship. A statement that gets travel dates wrong invites the inference that the author is not describing events they lived through. The sensible course is to build the chronology in the statement from passport stamps, boarding passes and booking confirmations before writing a word of narrative.

Previous visa applications and government records

The Department compares the current application with every earlier application made by the applicant, and in many cases by the sponsor. Earlier visitor, student or other applications contain answers about relationship status, marital status, addresses, employment and the purpose of travel. If a visitor visa application recorded the applicant as single at a time when partner visa relationship statements describe the couple as already committed, the case officer will want an explanation. If a previous application named a different partner, that previous relationship must be dealt with honestly. The same applies where an earlier application was refused, a situation covered in the article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal.

The procedural instruction on the integrity criterion identifies, as a trigger for further investigation, an applicant who has made claims that are inconsistent with claims made previously by themselves or their sponsor about their immigration history. Applicants who came to Australia on another visa and then applied for a partner visa, as discussed in the article on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa, face this cross-check as a matter of routine.

Declarations to other government bodies also matter. The procedural instruction treats the declaration of the relationship to government bodies, and the acceptance of those declarations, as evidence of the social aspects. The reverse is also true. A couple whose statement says they have lived together as partners for years, while one of them has declared to a government agency that they are single, has a conflict that the Tribunal has examined directly in remittal decisions discussed below.

How do interviews and home visits test partner visa relationship statements?

Interviews and home visits test partner visa relationship statements by asking each partner, often separately, to describe the relationship without the written statement in front of them. The aim is to see whether the account in the statement is a shared lived experience or a document one person prepared. Couples in same-sex relationships face the same questions under the same legal test.

The Department's procedural instruction on married relationships states that the mutuality of the commitment may be assessed by reference to the partners' knowledge of each other's personal circumstances, including background and family situation, and that this could be established at interview. That is the policy basis for the questions couples are commonly asked: how and where they met, who proposed, the names of each other's family members, each other's work, daily routines, how bills are paid, who does which household tasks, and what the couple plans for the future.

An interview does not require the couple to recite their statement. It does require their answers to be consistent with it. If partner visa relationship statements say the couple met at a friend's birthday dinner and one partner at interview describes meeting online, the case officer has two inconsistent accounts and must decide which, if either, to believe. If the statement says the couple share all household expenses through a joint account and neither partner can describe how the account works, the statement loses weight.

Home site visits

The Department may also visit the couple's home. A home site visit tests the nature of the household directly: whether both partners actually live at the address, whether the home shows signs of two people sharing a life, and whether what officers observe matches what partner visa relationship statements describe. A report of that visit may later be relied on in the decision.

Home site visit reports are not beyond challenge. In one remittal decision discussed later in this article, the reported issues included a home site visit report prepared without interpreters. Where a couple's first language is not English, the conditions in which an interview or visit was conducted can affect how much weight the resulting record deserves. That is a point to raise, with evidence, in a response to the Department or before the Tribunal.

Preparing for an interview without coaching

Preparation for an interview is not coaching. Nobody should be told what to say. Proper preparation means each partner re-reading the relationship statement, the forms and the key documents so that they know what has been said on their behalf, identifying any errors and correcting them formally before the interview, and being ready to say honestly that they do not remember a detail where that is the truth. A partner who gives a confident wrong answer to match the statement does more damage than a partner who says they are unsure of an exact date.

What happens when the Department finds an inconsistency in partner visa relationship statements?

When the Department finds an inconsistency in partner visa relationship statements, it may ask the applicant for more information under section 56 of the Migration Act, put adverse information to the applicant for comment under section 57, raise the issue at an interview, or, in some cases, decide the application without further contact. Which path is taken depends on the source of the inconsistency.

Section 56 requests for more information

Section 56 allows the decision maker to obtain any information they consider relevant and to invite the applicant to give additional information in a specified way. A section 56 request for more information is often the first sign that a case officer has a concern about partner visa relationship statements. Where a representative has been appointed using Form 956 or 956A, the request is usually sent to that representative. The request may ask for further evidence of cohabitation, an explanation of a period apart, more detail about how the couple met, or documents confirming a claimed event.

A section 56 request should be read as a signal of what the case officer has not yet accepted. The response should answer the question asked, with evidence, and should be checked against everything already on file before it is sent. A response that introduces a new version of events creates a second inconsistency rather than resolving the first.

Section 55 also allows the applicant to give additional relevant information at any time before the decision is made, and the decision maker must have regard to it. Couples do not need to wait for a request. If a gap in partner visa relationship statements becomes obvious after lodgement, it can be addressed voluntarily.

Section 57 natural justice letters

Section 57 requires the decision maker to give the applicant particulars of relevant information, ensure as far as reasonably practicable that the applicant understands why it is relevant, and invite the applicant to comment. The Department's procedural instruction on the integrity criterion describes relevant information as information that the decision maker considers would be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusing the visa, that is specifically about the applicant or another person, and that was not given by the applicant for the purposes of the application.

In practice, a section 57 letter often follows when the Department holds information from an outside source that conflicts with partner visa relationship statements: a movement record, an earlier visa application, an allegation from a third party, or a home site visit report. The section 57 natural justice letter guide for partner visas explains how to respond. The letter is usually the last real chance to resolve the issue before a decision. Applicants who lodged their own application and receive a letter of this kind often hire an immigration lawyer after lodgement at this point.

When no warning is required

Many applicants assume they will always be warned before a refusal. That is wrong. Section 57 does not cover information the applicant gave for the purposes of the application. A conflict between the applicant's own relationship statement and the applicant's own form answers, or between partner visa relationship statements and the answers the couple gave at their own interview, can be relied on to refuse the visa without that conflict being put back to the applicant in a section 57 letter.

This is the strongest practical reason to test partner visa relationship statements against every other document before lodgement. An inconsistency the couple creates themselves may never be raised with them. It may appear for the first time in the refusal decision. The refusal then has to be dealt with through the partner visa refusal review process, where review deadlines are short and strictly applied.

Correcting an error after lodgement

Section 104 of the Migration Act requires an applicant to notify the Department where a change in circumstances makes an answer in the application incorrect. The Form 1022 change of circumstances guide explains that process. Where an answer was wrong when it was given, the applicant can notify the incorrect answer under the Act's incorrect answer provisions, using the Department's notification form for that purpose. The Department's procedural instruction on the integrity criterion records that there is clear opportunity for an applicant to correct incorrect information, whether caused by inaccurate answers or changes in circumstances.

Applicants waiting on a decision in Australia usually hold a bridging visa linked to the application, so keeping the application accurate also protects their lawful status. Correcting an error formally is very different from changing the story in a later document. Partner visa relationship statements that drift between versions, with no explanation of why the account changed, damage credibility. A formal correction that identifies the error, explains how it occurred and supplies the right information is the honest and effective course.

Can inconsistent partner visa relationship statements lead to a PIC 4020 refusal?

Yes. Partner visa relationship statements that contain information which is false or misleading in a material particular can lead to refusal under public interest criterion 4020, which is a criterion for the grant of partner visas. The risk is not limited to fabricated relationships. It extends to false answers about previous relationships, previous visa applications and other facts relevant to the visa criteria.

What PIC 4020 requires

The Department's procedural instruction explains that PIC 4020(1) requires that there is no evidence before the decision maker that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, in relation to the current application or a visa the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made. The information can be given to the Minister, an officer or the Administrative Review Tribunal during a review.

PIC 4020(5) defines information that is false or misleading in a material particular as information that is false or misleading at the time it is given and relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider in deciding the application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information. A relationship statement goes to the core partner criteria, so false information in partner visa relationship statements will almost always be relevant to a criterion.

Who is responsible for the content

The procedural instruction states that the applicant is responsible for ensuring the documents and information in the application are truthful and correct, even if a migration agent or another third party acts on their behalf. Documents uploaded through ImmiAccount are treated as given by the applicant. The instruction is blunt: ignorance is no excuse, and an applicant cannot shift blame to the third party who prepared the document.

This is why the relationship statement must be the couple's own account. A statement prepared by someone else, which the applicant has not read closely, is still the applicant's statement in law. If it contains a false date or an omitted previous relationship, the applicant carries the consequence.

Innocent mistakes and purposeful falsity

PIC 4020 is not a strict liability trap for honest errors. The procedural instruction records the Full Federal Court's decision in Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42, which held that a refusal under PIC 4020 requires the information to have the quality of purposeful falsity. A visa application cannot be refused under PIC 4020 where the applicant can explain an innocent mistake. The instruction gives non-repeated typographical errors, such as a wrong house number or transposed year, as examples where there is no purposeful falsity.

The onus is on the applicant to explain the error in response to the invitation to comment. A clear explanation, supported by documents showing the true position and showing that the error was disclosed or apparent elsewhere in the application, is often the difference between a correction and a refusal. Partner visa relationship statements that are internally consistent and match the documents make it much easier to show that a single wrong date was an innocent slip.

Consequences and waiver

A refusal under PIC 4020(1) for false or misleading information or a bogus document triggers a three-year period in which a further visa subject to PIC 4020 cannot be granted unless the requirement is waived. PIC 4020(4) allows the decision maker to waive PIC 4020(1) and the three-year period where compelling circumstances affect the interests of Australia, or where compassionate or compelling circumstances affect the interests of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. In the partner visa context, the procedural instruction notes that the bonds between partners in a genuine relationship and the consequences of separation will differ from case to case, and lists factors such as Australian citizen children and the continuing separation of immediate family members.

There is no waiver for the identity limb of PIC 4020. A refusal for failure to satisfy the decision maker of identity carries a ten-year period. Spellings of names and places in partner visa relationship statements should therefore match the identity documents exactly, with any variations explained.

A visa obtained on incorrect information is also exposed after grant. The visa cancellations page explains that the Act contains a separate cancellation process for incorrect information. Getting the statement right at the start protects the visa long after it is granted.

How does the Administrative Review Tribunal test partner visa relationship statements?

The Administrative Review Tribunal tests partner visa relationship statements by reviewing the whole application afresh, taking oral evidence from the applicant, the sponsor and often witnesses, and asking questions designed to check whether each person's account matches the written evidence and each other. The Tribunal replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024.

The Tribunal looks at the whole record again

Merits review is not limited to the reasons the Department gave for refusal. The Tribunal considers the application again on the evidence before it at the time of its decision. The Tribunal therefore reads partner visa relationship statements against the Department's file, including interview records, home site visit reports and any section 57 correspondence, and against any new evidence lodged on review. The ART review guide and the article on partner visa appeal options explain how review works.

Hearing questions

At a hearing the Tribunal member usually asks each partner to describe the relationship in their own words. The questions often follow the chronology in partner visa relationship statements: how the couple met, when they decided to commit to each other, when they began living together, how they manage money and the household, who their friends are, how their families view the relationship, and what they plan for the future. Where the Tribunal hears the partners separately, it compares their answers with each other as well as with the written evidence.

The Tribunal also puts adverse information to the review applicant. Where the Tribunal has information that would be part of the reason for affirming the refusal, it will generally give particulars of that information and invite comment, either in writing or at the hearing. Couples should expect any conflict between their written statement and other records to be raised and should prepare a truthful explanation in advance.

New and updated evidence

Because the Tribunal decides on the evidence before it at the time of its decision, couples can lodge further evidence on review, including an updated relationship statement that covers the period since the Department's decision. One remittal decision listed below records, among its reported issues, that the Tribunal had more information available to it than was available to the delegate. That is the opportunity review offers. It is also the risk: every new document is another item against which partner visa relationship statements will be tested.

Applicants who are unsure whether earlier advice was right can obtain a second opinion from an immigration lawyer before the hearing. The Visa Appeal Lawyer article and the Visa Refusals page explain the firm's review work more generally.

What do Tribunal decisions show about partner visa relationship statements?

Tribunal decisions show that partner visa relationship statements are weighed for consistency, detail and credibility against the oral evidence and the documents, and that inconsistent evidence, limited knowledge of each other and undisclosed previous relationships are the issues that most often decide whether a refusal stands. The decisions below are remittals. Remittal means the Tribunal sent the matter back to the Department to reconsider. The descriptions record only the issues reported for each decision. Decisions made before 14 October 2024 were made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which the Administrative Review Tribunal replaced.

Consistent, detailed and credible evidence

• Ta (Migration) [2024] AATA 3832. The reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, a valid marriage, the financial, household and social aspects of the relationship and the nature of the commitment, and consistent and credible evidence.
• Kuang (Migration) [2024] AATA 3840. The reported issues included a genuine and continuing spousal relationship, the four aspects of the relationship, a valid marriage, and detailed and credible evidence.
• Hoang (Migration) [2021] AATA 2853. The reported issues included a valid marriage and detailed and consistent evidence of the financial, household and social aspects of the relationship and the nature of the commitment.
• Thapa (Migration) [2020] AATA 1692. The reported issues were that both parties provided consistent oral evidence, an Australian marriage certificate was provided, the relationship was genuine and continuing, and substantial corroborative evidence was provided.
• Mohammad (Migration) [2023] AATA 4620. The reported issues included that the parties gave consistent evidence reflecting a sound knowledge of each other's family, and that the parties were validly married.

These decisions share a pattern. The reported issues describe evidence that was consistent across sources and detailed enough to be credible. That is what partner visa relationship statements should be built to deliver.

Inconsistent evidence

• 2431123 (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1276. The reported issues were a Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal, a genuine and continuing relationship, inconsistent evidence and limited corroborative evidence, and difficulty understanding requirements.
• Nguyen (Migration) [2018] AATA 5304. The reported issues included a genuine spousal relationship, marital status with Centrelink, inconsistencies between the applicant and the sponsor at the hearing, and a 19-year age difference.
• 1620095 (Migration) [2019] AATA 400. The reported issues were false information, inconsistent information submitted, the Tribunal being satisfied of the visa applicant's identity, and a genuine and continuing relationship.
• Gillard (Migration) [2019] AATA 2934. The reported issues included concern about the reliability of certain evidence, a language barrier, an arranged marriage, and relatives' evidence found credible.

The reported issues in the 2026 decision place inconsistent evidence alongside difficulty understanding requirements. Partner visa relationship statements written without understanding what the case officer will compare them with are more likely to conflict with the rest of the file.

Updated statements, interviews and home site visits

• Tran (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2243. The reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, an updated relationship statement, shared family commitments, and family recognition of the relationship.
• Nguyen (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2121. The reported issues were a Federal Court remittal, a genuine and continuing relationship, a home site visit report prepared without interpreters, and a joint home purchase.
• KAUR (Migration) [2019] AATA 3936. The reported issues included a genuine spousal relationship, seven years of cohabitation, the benefit of oral evidence from the applicant and the sponsor separately, and anonymous allegations.
• Bateman (Migration) [2019] AATA 394. The reported issues included a genuine de facto relationship, credible witnesses, and that the Tribunal had more information available to it than was available to the delegate.

Knowledge of each other's circumstances

• Raymont (Migration) [2020] AATA 5584. The reported issues included the couple's visits to each other's countries, the applicant's inaccurate knowledge of the sponsor, and methods of communication.
• Chen (Migration) [2018] AATA 4825. The reported issues included a marriage in the home country, a lack of knowledge of the other's circumstances, and a joint bank account.
• 2008553 (Migration) [2024] AATA 2749. The reported issues included limited knowledge of the partner's personal circumstances, evidence of events after the visa application, and allegations made by an anonymous source.

Undisclosed facts and false or misleading information

• Yeung (Migration) [2020] AATA 4137. The reported issues included a Federal Circuit Court remittal, incorrect information in the visa application and in Department interviews, and that meeting through an introduction agency was not disclosed.
• PALASIT (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1914. The reported issues were false or misleading information, a previous relationship not declared, an element of fraud or deception, and the discretion to waive the criterion.
• 2107016 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2250. The reported issues included that the parties provided false or misleading information and failed to disclose a previous relationship and a Subclass 300 visa application.
• 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 separated but still living together.
• Ahmed (Migration) [2023] AATA 3761. The reported issues included pooling of finances while living in different countries and adverse and inconsistent information about previous relationships.

The Yeung decision deserves attention. The reported issues include incorrect information given in Department interviews, not only in the written application. Partner visa relationship statements, form answers and interview answers are all part of the same body of evidence, and all of them are tested against each other.

How should partner visa relationship statements be structured to survive testing?

Partner visa relationship statements survive testing when they are built on a verified chronology, organised so that each part of the account can be matched to a record, written in the couple's own words, and checked line by line against every other document before lodgement. Structure is a defence against the cross-checks described above, not a matter of style.

Start from records, not memory

The chronology should be built first, from documents: passport entries and exits, boarding passes, booking confirmations, leases, bank account opening dates, employment start and end dates, and the dates of key messages and photographs. Only after the dates are fixed should the narrative be written. Partner visa relationship statements built this way do not contradict movement records, because the movement records were used to write them.

Where a date cannot be confirmed, the statement should say so plainly, for example by giving a month rather than a day, and should not invent precision. An approximate date stated honestly will not cause a problem. A precise date that is wrong may.

Follow the order the decision maker uses

A clear structure makes partner visa relationship statements easier to test, which is an advantage when the content is true. A sensible order is:

• How the couple met and how the relationship developed, in chronological order, with dates matching the forms.
• When and how the couple committed to a shared life, including any engagement or marriage and the date given in the application.
• Living arrangements over time, address by address, matching Form 80 and the household documents, with any periods apart explained.
• How the couple manage money, describing the actual arrangements that the financial documents show.
• How the household runs day to day, describing the real division of tasks and responsibilities.
• How the couple present to family, friends and the community, naming the people who have given Form 888 statements and how they know the couple.
• The commitment and the future, describing the couple's plans in concrete terms, as part of the same statement and not as a separate document.

This order mirrors the four aspects in regulation 1.15A(3) and regulation 1.09A(3) without turning them into separate statements. It lets a case officer find the passage that corresponds to each document quickly. It also lets the couple check the statement against the evidence section by section.

Deal with the difficult facts openly

Previous marriages and de facto relationships, earlier visa applications, previous sponsorships, periods of separation, cultural or family opposition, a short courtship, an age difference and periods of living apart for work all draw scrutiny. Undisclosed previous relationships and earlier applications feature repeatedly in the Tribunal decisions above. Partner visa relationship statements should address difficult facts directly, explain them, and point to the evidence that supports the explanation. An issue raised by the couple reads as candour. The same issue found by the case officer reads as concealment.

Where the sponsor has sponsored a partner before, the sponsorship limitations rules may also apply, and the facts in the statement must match what the sponsorship records show.

Write it in the couple's own words

Partner visa relationship statements must be the couple's own account. A statement that reads like a template, or that uses language neither partner would use at interview, is quickly exposed when the partners are asked to describe the relationship themselves. It is far better for a statement to be plain and accurate than polished and unfamiliar. A professional reviewer can identify gaps, inconsistencies and missing evidence, and the couple then corrects and confirms the statement themselves.

Where a partner's first language is not English, the statement should be prepared in a way that the partner fully understands. If a translation is involved, both versions must say the same thing. A partner who signs a statement they cannot read has not given their own account.

Cross-check before lodging

Before lodgement, partner visa relationship statements should be compared, line by line, with the application form answers, the sponsorship, Form 80, each Form 888 statement, the documentary evidence and the couple's previous visa applications. Every date, address, name and event should appear the same way everywhere. Where the documents correctly show something different from the draft statement, the statement must change. Where the statement is right and a form answer is wrong, the form answer must be formally corrected.

The guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship and the article on why partner visas get refused cover the evidence side of the same exercise. The comparison of a partner visa lawyer and doing it yourself explains where couples most often need a second set of eyes on the file. The seven most common reasons Subclass 820 visas are refused show how often credibility issues sit behind a refusal.

When should partner visa relationship statements be updated?

Partner visa relationship statements should be updated when the permanent stage is assessed, when the Department asks for more information about the relationship, when circumstances change, and when the matter goes to the Tribunal. An update adds to the original account. It should not quietly replace it.

At the permanent stage

Partner visa applications are combined applications for a temporary and a permanent visa. The Department assesses the permanent stage once two years have passed since the combined application was made. At that point the Department asks for current evidence that the relationship continues, and an updated relationship statement is usually part of that evidence. The Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 comparison explains the two stages.

The updated statement is read against the original. It should pick up where the original ended and describe what has happened since: changes in address, work, finances, family and plans. If the original statement contained an error, the update is not the place to correct it silently. The error should be identified and corrected expressly.

When the relationship or circumstances change

Where the relationship has broken down, or the sponsor has died, the law provides specific pathways, and the article on what happens to a Subclass 820 application if the relationship breaks down explains them. Where family violence is involved, the family violence provisions operate differently. In each case the Department must be told of the change, and partner visa relationship statements already on file will be compared with the new account.

On review

On review, an updated relationship statement can cover the period since the Department's decision and respond directly to the reasons for refusal. The Tran decision listed above records an updated relationship statement among its reported issues. An updated statement on review should address each finding the Department made, explain any inconsistency the Department relied on, and point to the new and existing evidence that resolves it.

How My Migration Lawyers reviews partner visa relationship statements before they are tested

My Migration Lawyers reviews partner visa relationship statements as evidence that will be tested, not as documents to be polished. The relationship statement is always the client's own account. The firm's role is to examine it against everything else on file, identify the gaps and inconsistencies, and explain them to the client, who then corrects and confirms the statement in their own words.

The firm's work on partner visa relationship statements follows a set sequence:

• Building the chronology from records. The firm assembles passport movements, previous visa applications, addresses, employment dates and the key documents into a single timeline before the statement is finalised, so that the account the couple gives can be checked against the records the Department will use.
• Line by line cross-checking. The draft statement is compared with the application answers, the sponsorship, Form 80, each Form 888 statement and the documentary evidence across the four aspects. Every conflict is listed for the client to resolve.
• Identifying difficult facts early. Previous relationships, earlier applications, previous sponsorships, periods apart and identity spellings are raised with the client before lodgement, so that they are disclosed and explained rather than discovered.
• Formal corrections. Where a form answer is wrong, the firm advises on the correct notification rather than leaving the statement to contradict the form.
• Interview and hearing readiness. The firm explains to both partners what the statement says and which parts of their account are likely to be tested, without telling anyone what to say.
• Responses to section 56 and section 57 correspondence. Where the Department raises a concern, the firm reviews the whole file before responding, so that the answer resolves the inconsistency rather than creating another.
• Tribunal review. Where a refusal has been made and review is still available, the firm prepares the review file, including any updated relationship statement, around the specific findings the Department made.

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex partner visa matters, including applications with previous sponsorships, earlier refusals, undisclosed facts that need to be corrected, interview concerns and integrity issues under PIC 4020. The firm acts in many matters where partner visa relationship statements and their consistency with the rest of the file are the central issue, and it is capable of handling those matters at the application stage, in response to Department correspondence and before the Tribunal. Matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. More about the firm is on the About My Migration Lawyers page, the Partner Visa Lawyer Australia article explains what a lawyer does on a partner visa matter, and the article on when to use an immigration lawyer for a partner visa sets out the situations where legal help matters most.

Consultations are held by video, and the firm acts for couples across Australia, including clients who look for partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. Couples comparing representation can also read the firm's guides to choosing the best partner visa lawyer in Australia and in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta.

If partner visa relationship statements have been drafted and not yet lodged, if a section 56 request or section 57 letter has arrived, or if an interview, home visit or Tribunal hearing is coming up, the time to have the statement reviewed is before it is tested again. Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have the relationship statement and the rest of the file reviewed. To speak with the firm, call 1300 040 300.