Partner Visa Schedule 3 and Bridging Visa Holders

The partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa question comes up in almost every onshore partner matter where the applicant is waiting on another application, a review or a removal process. The answer is direct. A person who holds only a bridging visa on the day they lodge a Subclass 820 application is not the holder of a substantive visa, and the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa rules then apply to them in full.

That surprises many applicants. They hold a visa. VEVO shows them as lawful. They may have work rights and a grant notice with an official reference number. None of that changes the legal position, because the Migration Act 1958 treats bridging visas as a separate category of visa that does not count as a substantive visa. For the Subclass 820, the Schedule 3 test turns on substantive visa status at the time of application, not on whether the applicant is lawful.

This article explains the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa position precisely. It covers the legal trigger in clause 820.211, what criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 actually require, how the 28 day window is counted when a bridging visa was held in between, how the rules apply to each class of bridging visa, which bridging visa the partner application then produces, and what a lawyer checks before lodging. For the wider onshore picture, see the complete guide to partner visas in Australia and the Subclass 820 partner visa guide.

Does Schedule 3 Apply to a Partner Visa If You Hold a Bridging Visa?

Yes. Schedule 3 applies to a Subclass 820 applicant who holds only a bridging visa at the time of application, because a bridging visa is not a substantive visa. Under subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, an applicant who is not the holder of a substantive visa must satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria.

The definition that drives the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa outcome is in subsection 5(1) of the Act. A substantive visa is a visa other than a bridging visa, a criminal justice visa or an enforcement visa. A Bridging visa A, Bridging visa B, Bridging visa C or Bridging visa E is therefore never a substantive visa, however long it has been held and whatever conditions it carries.

The Department's own procedural instruction on Schedule 3 states the target group plainly. Schedule 3 specifies additional criteria for most visa applicants who are in Australia and who, at the time of application, are an unlawful non-citizen or hold only a bridging visa. The partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa rule is not an extension of the law to bridging visa holders by policy. It is the way the criteria were drafted from the start.

Subsection 76(2) of the Act reinforces the point. It provides that holding a bridging visa is not to be taken, for the purposes of an application for a visa of another class, to be the holding of a visa. A partner applicant cannot rely on a bridging visa to show that they held a visa when they lodged.

The Schedule 3 waiver service page explains how the firm runs these matters, and the guide to Schedule 3 criteria for partner visas sets out the criteria for applicants who lodged while unlawful. This article focuses on the narrower partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa situation: applicants who were lawful, but only on a bridging visa.

The trigger is the day of lodgement

The partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa test is applied at the time of application. Clause 820.211 is a time of application criterion. What matters is whether the applicant held a substantive visa at the moment the combined Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application was validly made. Status a week earlier or a week later does not decide the point.

That is why timing decisions made in the final days of a visitor, student or work visa matter so much. An application lodged at 11pm on the last day of a substantive visa is a substantive visa holder's application. An application lodged the next morning is not. The onshore partner visa requirements guide explains the other lodgement requirements that must be satisfied on the same day.

Who is not caught

Not every applicant without a substantive visa faces the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa criteria. Subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(i) deals separately with certain applicants who entered Australia on a Subclass 995 (Diplomatic) visa or as a qualifying special purpose visa holder, who instead face criterion 3002. Subclause 820.211(5) applies to an applicant who last entered Australia on a Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa, married the person they entered Australia to marry, and ceased to hold a substantive visa after the marriage. The Department's instruction confirms that applicants who satisfy subclause 820.211(5) are not required to meet any Schedule 3 criteria. Subclause 820.211(9) deals with certain former Subclass 300 holders whose relationship ended because of family violence by the sponsoring partner, which is covered on the family violence service page.

Everyone else who lodges while holding only a bridging visa is inside the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa rules. That includes dependent children who are secondary applicants, because clause 820.312 imposes the same Schedule 3 criteria on secondary applicants who do not hold a substantive visa.

What Do Schedule 3 Criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 Require?

Schedule 3 imposes three separate criteria on a Subclass 820 applicant who does not hold a substantive visa: criterion 3001 sets a 28 day time limit, criterion 3003 deals with people whose status problem began before 1 September 1994, and criterion 3004 deals with people who ceased to hold a substantive visa on or after that date. Unless the compelling reasons waiver in subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) is applied, all three must be satisfied.

Understanding each criterion is essential to the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa analysis, because a common error is to treat criterion 3001 as the only hurdle.

Criterion 3001: the 28 day time limit

Criterion 3001 requires the application to be made within 28 days after the relevant day. For applicants who ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994, the relevant day under paragraph 3001(2)(c) is the last day the applicant held a substantive or criminal justice visa, or the day the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully, whichever is later. The Department's instruction confirms that "last" means that, where the applicant has held more than one substantive visa, the time limit runs from the cessation of the last one.

The Department's instruction also confirms that criterion 3001 does not prevent a valid application from being made. It operates as a criterion for grant. A person outside the 28 day window can still lodge a valid partner application, but cannot be granted the Subclass 820 unless criterion 3001 is satisfied or the compelling reasons waiver is applied.

Criterion 3003: historical cases

Criterion 3003 applies only if the applicant, on 31 August 1994, was an illegal entrant or held an entry permit that was not valid beyond that date, and has not held a substantive visa since 1 September 1994. The Department's instruction states that if either of those circumstances does not apply, the applicant satisfies criterion 3003 without further enquiry. For almost every current partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa case, criterion 3003 is satisfied automatically.

Criterion 3004: the substantive test

Criterion 3004 is where most partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa matters are decided. It applies to an applicant who ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994, or who entered Australia unlawfully on or after that date and has not since been granted a substantive visa. If it applies, the applicant must satisfy all six requirements in paragraphs 3004(c) to (h):

• (c) Factors beyond control: the applicant became a person without a substantive visa because of factors beyond their control. The Department's instruction stresses causation. The factors must have caused the loss of status, not merely existed at the time.
• (d) Compelling reasons for grant: there are compelling reasons for granting the visa.
• (e) Substantial compliance: the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of their last substantive visa, including any subsequent bridging visa.
• (f) Entitlement at the time: the applicant would have been entitled to the visa had they applied immediately before ceasing to hold their last substantive visa.
• (g) Intention to comply: the applicant intends to comply with the conditions of the visa to be granted.
• (h) No pre-1994 no further stay condition: the last visa or entry permit was not subject to the pre-1 September 1994 form of a no further stay condition.

Paragraph 3004(e) matters directly in partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa cases. The compliance test expressly extends to the conditions of any bridging visa held after the last substantive visa. An applicant who worked in breach of condition 8101 on a Bridging visa C or Bridging visa E has a compliance problem under criterion 3004, in addition to any separate character or cancellation risk.

The compelling reasons waiver

Subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) allows the decision maker not to apply criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 at all if satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying them. This is the waiver that most partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa applicants ultimately rely on, because criterion 3004 is demanding even for applicants who lodged inside the 28 day window.

The Full Federal Court in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32 held that compelling reasons are assessed on all of the applicant's circumstances as known up to the time of decision, not only those that existed at lodgement. Circumstances arising after the application, such as the birth of a child, can be relied on. The Schedule 3 partner visa waiver article explains the waiver and the evidence it needs.

How Does Criterion 3001 Count Time If You Held a Bridging Visa in Between?

Criterion 3001 counts the 28 days from the last day you held a substantive visa, and a bridging visa held after that day does not restart or pause the count. This is the single most misunderstood part of the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa rules, and it is where applicants lose the most time.

The relevant day under paragraph 3001(2)(c) is defined by reference to substantive or criminal justice visas only. A Bridging visa A that came into effect when a student visa expired, a Bridging visa B used to travel, a Bridging visa C held for a pending application or a Bridging visa E granted after an overstay is not a substantive visa. None of them is relevant to the count. If the student visa ended three years ago and the applicant has held bridging visas ever since, the 28 day window closed three years ago.

Counting the 28 days

The Department's instruction sets out the counting rule. The first of the 28 days is the day after the last day the applicant held the substantive visa. The application must be lodged by midnight on the 28th day. If the 28th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a public or bank holiday in any place in Australia where the application could have been made, the criterion is satisfied if the application is lodged by midnight on the next day that is not one of those days.

Because partner applications are lodged online, the instruction's example is useful. An application lodged in Sydney on the 29th day can still satisfy criterion 3001 if the 28th day was a public or bank holiday somewhere else in Australia where the application could have been made, even if it was not a holiday in Sydney. Any partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa case that turns on a day or two should be checked against the public holiday calendars for every state and territory.

A worked example

Consider a hypothetical applicant who held a Subclass 500 student visa that expired on 30 June. Before it expired, they applied for another temporary visa and received a Bridging visa A, which came into effect on 1 July. Two years later, the other application is refused and goes to review. The applicant then lodges a Subclass 820 application while the Bridging visa A is still in effect.

On the day of lodgement, the applicant does not hold a substantive visa. Schedule 3 applies. The relevant day for criterion 3001 is 30 June two years earlier, the last day the student visa was held. The 28 day window ended in July of that year. The two years on a Bridging visa A do not count toward the window and do not reset it. Unless the compelling reasons waiver is applied, the Subclass 820 cannot be granted.

The same applicant, had they lodged the partner application on 29 June while the student visa was still in effect, would have been a substantive visa holder and Schedule 3 would not have applied at all. That is the practical lesson of every partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa case: the cheapest solution is to lodge before the substantive visa ends.

Why the bridging visa does not help

Applicants often reason that because they were never unlawful, they should be treated differently from someone who overstayed. The policy rationale in the Department's instruction explains why the law does not draw that distinction. Schedule 3 is designed to encourage non-citizens with a legitimate basis for remaining in Australia to apply for a further visa before their current substantive visa ceases, and to prevent people from acquiring visa eligibility while remaining without a substantive visa. Lawful status on a bridging visa is relevant to the merits of a waiver request, but it does not change whether the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa criteria apply.

Partner Visa Schedule 3 Bridging Visa Scenarios

The partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa outcome depends on which bridging visa you hold, whether it is in effect, and when your last substantive visa ended. The scenarios below cover the situations seen most often in onshore partner matters. Each is a general illustration, not advice on any individual case.

Bridging visa A granted but not yet in effect

Schedule 3 does not apply if your Bridging visa A has been granted but your substantive visa is still in effect on the day you lodge. A Bridging visa A granted while you hold a substantive visa is held from grant, but under the Department's bridging visa instructions it does not come into effect until the substantive visa ceases. Until then, you still hold the substantive visa.

This is the most important exception in the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa analysis. A person who has applied to extend their stay, received a Bridging visa A, and still has weeks left on their student or work visa is a substantive visa holder for the purposes of clause 820.211. If they lodge the Subclass 820 before the substantive visa expires, Schedule 3 is not engaged. If they wait until after expiry, it is.

Check VEVO before lodging, using an ImmiAccount or the passport details, because the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa outcome can turn on a single day. VEVO shows whether the substantive visa is still in effect and whether the Bridging visa A has come into effect. The Bridging visa A article explains when a Bridging visa A starts and what it allows.

Bridging visa A in effect from a pending application

Schedule 3 applies if your Bridging visa A is in effect because the substantive visa you held when you made another application has ended. This is the classic partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa scenario. A visitor visa holder applies for another visa, the visitor visa expires, and the Bridging visa A comes into effect while that other application is pending. If the person then lodges a Subclass 820, they are not a substantive visa holder.

The Bridging visa A does keep the person lawful, and that matters. Lawful status, compliance with the Bridging visa A conditions and the reason the earlier application was made are all relevant to criterion 3004 and to the waiver. But the 28 day window under criterion 3001 runs from the end of the visitor visa, so unless the applicant lodged within 28 days of that date, criterion 3001 is not met. Applicants moving from a tourist visa should read the tourist visa to partner visa guide, which also explains the condition 8503 risk on many visitor visas.

Bridging visa A that continued after refusal and ART review

Schedule 3 applies, and section 48 of the Act usually applies as well, if you lodge the partner application while holding a Bridging visa A that has continued after another visa was refused. This partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa scenario is common for former student and skilled visa holders whose later application was refused by the Department and taken to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).

Two separate barriers arise. First, the applicant does not hold a substantive visa, so criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 apply unless waived, and the 28 day window has usually long passed. Second, because a visa has been refused since the applicant last entered Australia and they do not hold a substantive visa, section 48 limits the visas they can apply for in Australia. Regulation 2.12 permits a Subclass 820 application despite section 48, but paragraph 1124B(3)(e) of Schedule 1 imposes additional validity requirements on the Subclass 801 application, including a sponsorship form completed and signed by the sponsoring partner at the time of lodgement. If those requirements are not met, the combined application is invalid.

The partner visa after a visa refusal article explains section 48 for partner applicants. The ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024, and the article on what to expect after a refusal goes to the ART explains how review applications run. If the earlier refusal is still within time for review, the review deadline is short, runs from notification, is strictly applied and cannot be extended by the Tribunal. That deadline must be managed separately from the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa analysis.

Bridging visa B

Schedule 3 applies if you lodge a Subclass 820 while holding a Bridging visa B, because a Bridging visa B is a bridging visa and not a substantive visa. A Bridging visa B is only available to a person who already holds a Bridging visa A or B for a pending substantive visa application, so the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa position for a Bridging visa B holder is usually the same as for the Bridging visa A on which it was based.

Travel does not reset the count. A person who leaves and returns on a Bridging visa B re-enters on a bridging visa, not a substantive visa, so the relevant day for criterion 3001 remains the last day they held a substantive visa. Subsection 48(3) of the Act also provides that a person who leaves and re-enters Australia on a bridging visa is taken to have remained continuously in the migration zone, so travel on a Bridging visa B does not remove a section 48 bar either. The Bridging visa B article explains how the travel facility works.

Bridging visa C

Schedule 3 applies if you hold a Bridging visa C when you lodge. A Bridging visa C is granted to a person who did not hold a substantive visa when they made the substantive visa application it relates to. By definition, a Bridging visa C holder has already been without a substantive visa for some time, and the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa criteria will apply to the new partner application.

Bridging visa C holders frequently hold condition 8101, which prohibits work. Because paragraph 3004(e) looks at compliance with the conditions of any bridging visa held after the last substantive visa, a Bridging visa C holder who has worked in breach of condition 8101 faces an additional difficulty under criterion 3004 and a weaker waiver position. Any work history on a Bridging visa C must be reviewed honestly before the application is prepared.

Bridging visa E after overstaying

Schedule 3 applies if you hold a Bridging visa E when you lodge, and the 28 day window has almost always passed. A Bridging visa E is commonly granted to a person who has become unlawful, for example after overstaying a visitor or student visa, to allow them to make arrangements to depart or to make an application. The partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa analysis for a Bridging visa E holder usually involves a period of unlawful residence before the Bridging visa E was granted.

That history matters to the waiver. The Department's procedural instruction for the Subclass 820 lists the length of time the applicant has been an unlawful non-citizen, the reasons they became unlawful, and the reasons they did not seek to become lawful sooner, among the factors decision makers consider when assessing compelling reasons. It gives the example of an applicant who has remained unlawful for a number of years, made little or no effort to become lawful, and relies only on a long relationship and separation hardship as a case where compelling reasons may not exist. Every partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa submission for a Bridging visa E holder must therefore explain the unlawful period honestly and show what the applicant did to regularise their status.

Holding more than one bridging visa

A person can hold more than one bridging visa at the same time, for example a Bridging visa A for one application and a Bridging visa C for another. The Department's bridging visa instructions recognise this situation. Holding several bridging visas does not change the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa position. None of them is a substantive visa, and none of them affects the relevant day for criterion 3001. What matters is the date the last substantive visa ended and the applicant's compliance with the conditions of every visa held since.

Common Partner Visa Schedule 3 Bridging Visa Mistakes

Most partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa problems come from five predictable misunderstandings. Each one can be avoided by checking the law before the application is lodged.

Mistake 1: "I am lawful, so Schedule 3 does not apply"

Lawful status is not the test. Subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) turns on whether the applicant holds a substantive visa, and a bridging visa never qualifies. Applicants on a Bridging visa A who have never overstayed are surprised to find that the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa criteria apply to them in the same way as to a person who has been unlawful, although their history is much more favourable when the waiver is assessed.

Mistake 2: "Lodging within 28 days solves the problem"

Lodging within 28 days satisfies criterion 3001 only. Criterion 3004 still applies to anyone who ceased to hold a substantive visa on or after 1 September 1994, and it requires factors beyond the applicant's control, compelling reasons for grant, substantial compliance with visa conditions and the other requirements in paragraphs 3004(c) to (h). An applicant who simply let a visa lapse and lodged two weeks later may satisfy criterion 3001 but still face difficulty under criterion 3004 unless the waiver is applied. The 28 day window helps. It does not end the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa analysis.

Mistake 3: "The bridging visa restarted the clock"

It did not. The relevant day for criterion 3001 is the last day a substantive visa was held. A new bridging visa, a new application or a period of travel on a Bridging visa B does not change that day. This is the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa error that most often converts a manageable case into a waiver case.

Mistake 4: "Our relationship is the compelling reason"

Department policy says the opposite. The Subclass 820 procedural instruction states that, as a general rule, the existence of a genuine relationship and the hardship of separation if the applicant must leave and apply outside Australia are not compelling reasons to avoid applying the Schedule 3 criteria, because a genuine relationship is the basis of every partner application and separation hardship is common across the caseload. Policy does not bind the Tribunal, and the circumstances of each case must be considered, but a waiver request built only on the relationship is a weak partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa submission. Strong relationship evidence is still essential, because the relationship must be proven in any event.

Mistake 5: "A bridging visa cures condition 8503"

It does not. A no further stay condition such as condition 8503 on the last substantive visa prevents a valid Subclass 820 application under subsection 46(1A) of the Act unless the condition is waived under subsection 41(2A). If the partner application is invalid, no bridging visa arises from it and the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa question never gets reached. The Subclass 820 and condition 8503 article explains the waiver test.

A further warning about leaving Australia

Some applicants consider leaving Australia and returning on a new visa to restore substantive visa status before lodging. Whether that changes the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa position depends on the visa obtained, its conditions, including any no further stay condition, and the risk of being refused re-entry or a visa while overseas. Departure can also end some bridging visas and affect later applications. It must never be attempted without advice on the specific facts. A visa cancellation while overseas, or a refusal of the new visa, can leave the applicant in a far worse position, which is why the visa cancellations page and the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa analysis should be read together before any travel decision.

Which Bridging Visa Will the Partner Application Itself Produce?

If you lodge the Subclass 820 without holding a substantive visa, the partner application will usually produce a Bridging visa C, or a Bridging visa E if you have held a Bridging visa E since your last substantive visa. A Bridging visa A is not available for the partner application, because paragraph 010.211(2)(c) requires the applicant to have held a substantive visa when the substantive visa application was made.

The rules for the new bridging visa sit alongside the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa criteria but are separate from them:

• Bridging visa C: item 1303 of Schedule 1 allows a valid Bridging visa C application by a person who did not hold a substantive visa when they made the substantive visa application, does not hold a Bridging visa E and has not held one since they last held a substantive visa. The Department's instruction notes that the person may be unlawful or hold another bridging visa at the time. For a partner applicant, the Bridging visa C application is made on the same form and at the same time as the partner application.
• Bridging visa E: a person who has held a Bridging visa E since their last substantive visa cannot obtain a Bridging visa C and will usually hold a Bridging visa E linked to the partner application.
• Existing Bridging visa A: a Bridging visa A held for an earlier application is not replaced by the partner application. It continues for that earlier application, and the new Bridging visa C sits alongside it. Which bridging visa is in effect at a given time is decided by the most beneficial bridging visa rules in regulation 2.21.

A Bridging visa C cannot ground a Bridging visa B, so an applicant who lodges on this basis generally cannot obtain permission to travel through the partner application. A Bridging visa C linked to the partner application also does not cure Schedule 3. It simply keeps the applicant lawful while the Department decides whether the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa criteria are met or waived. The guide to bridging visas in Australia and the Subclass 820 work rights article cover classes, conditions and work rights in more detail.

What Counts as Compelling Reasons in a Partner Visa Schedule 3 Bridging Visa Case?

Compelling reasons are circumstances that, considered individually and together, make it morally necessary not to apply the Schedule 3 criteria, and they are assessed on everything known up to the time of decision. The Regulations do not define them, so the Department's instruction tells decision makers to consider each partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa case on its own facts.

The Subclass 820 procedural instruction lists matters delegates should consider, including:

• any history of non-compliance with visa conditions;
• the length of time the applicant has been an unlawful non-citizen in Australia;
• the reasons the applicant became an unlawful non-citizen, or a person without a substantive visa;
• the reasons the applicant did not seek to become lawful sooner;
• current family composition, including dependent children; and
• the steps the applicant has taken to become lawful other than the partner application.

Policy also identifies circumstances that weigh in favour of a waiver. It is reasonable to accept that compelling circumstances exist where the applicant was prevented from becoming lawful by reasons beyond their control, such as severe illness or incapacity. Where there is an Australian citizen child with a demonstrable link to the applicant, policy says a decision may be made to waive Schedule 3 in the best interests of the child.

Policy equally identifies what weighs against. The waiver is not intended to give an advantage to people who fail to comply with visa conditions, who deliberately manipulate their circumstances to create compelling reasons, or who can leave Australia and apply offshore. Policy also says the waiver should not be applied where it is reasonable to expect the applicant to leave and apply outside Australia.

Applicants who held only bridging visas, and stayed lawful throughout, often have a better story to tell under these factors than applicants who overstayed. They may have pursued a genuine earlier application, complied with every condition and never been unlawful. That history does not remove the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa criteria, but it is directly relevant to whether compelling reasons exist. The evidence must be gathered and presented properly: the relationship statement, Form 888 statements from people who know the couple, and documents about children, health and the reasons the earlier application was made.

What Tribunal Decisions Show About Bridging Visa Holders and Schedule 3

Tribunal decisions show that the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa issue is regularly litigated, and that the outcome turns on the evidence of the applicant's circumstances rather than on the bridging visa itself. In each decision below, taken from reported Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal set aside the refusal and remitted the matter, which means it sent the application back to the Department to reconsider. A remittal is not a grant. The issues listed are the issues the decisions were reported on:

• Bamba (Migration) [2020] AATA 1868: the applicant was on a bridging visa after lengthy unlawful residence, the application was lodged more than 28 days after the applicant last held a substantive visa, and waiver of the criterion was in issue.
• 1814075 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3700: the application was made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held, the applicant had two periods of unlawful residence and bridging visas, and the length of the relationship was considered.
• Yuan (Migration) [2024] AATA 3638: the application was made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held, a bridging visa was later granted in association with another review application, and cumulative factors were considered.
• 1726263 (Migration) [2020] AATA 5621: the applicant held no substantive visa at the time of application, compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria were in issue, and the application was lodged a short time after the substantive visa expired.
• Fu (Migration) [2025] ARTA 669: a matter returned by the Federal Circuit Court in which compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria were in issue, the applicant held no substantive visa at the time of application, and multiple entries to Australia were permitted.

The first four decisions were made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before the ART commenced. The last was made by the ART. These decisions illustrate the circumstances examined in particular cases. They do not establish that any fact will be accepted as compelling in a later partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa case, and the Department's policy that relationship and separation hardship alone are generally insufficient remains in place.

Schedule 3 is one of the recurring themes in why partner visas get refused, and a partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa refusal is usually a refusal about evidence of compelling reasons rather than about the relationship. If the Department has already refused a Subclass 820 on Schedule 3 grounds, the partner visa refusals page, the Subclass 820 refusal reasons article and the partner visa refusal appeal options article explain the next steps. The review deadline is short and strictly applied, and the refusal letter states it. Read it on the day it arrives. The visa appeal lawyer guide explains how review matters are prepared. Matters that go beyond the Tribunal are covered on the judicial review page.

What Does a Lawyer Check Before Lodging?

Before lodging a partner application for a bridging visa holder, a lawyer confirms the applicant's full visa history, the date the last substantive visa ended, every condition attached since, and whether section 48 or a no further stay condition affects validity. The partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa analysis is only as good as the visa history it is built on.

A careful pre-lodgement check covers:

• Current status on the intended lodgement day. Is a substantive visa still in effect? If so, lodging before it ends avoids Schedule 3 entirely.
• The last substantive visa. Its subclass, grant date, the date it ceased, and how it ceased, whether by expiry, grant of another visa or cancellation. This fixes the relevant day for criterion 3001.
• Every bridging visa since. Class, grant date, the application each relates to, whether it was in effect, and its conditions. This informs paragraph 3004(e).
• Compliance. Any work or study in breach of conditions, any period of unlawful residence, and any departure from Australia.
• Refusals and cancellations since last entry. These determine whether section 48 applies and whether the sponsorship form must accompany the application under paragraph 1124B(3)(e).
• No further stay conditions. Condition 8503 or a similar condition on the last substantive visa must be identified and, where possible, waived before any partner application is lodged.
• Compelling reasons. Children, health, the reasons for the earlier applications, the reasons status was lost, the sponsor's circumstances, and the practical consequences of requiring an offshore application.
• Which bridging visa the partner application will produce. Usually a Bridging visa C or a Bridging visa E, with the work and travel consequences that follow.

The firm obtains the visa history itself through VEVO and Department and Tribunal records, rather than asking clients to locate old grant notices. Applicants who lodged without advice can read about hiring a lawyer after lodgement or changing immigration lawyer, because a partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa submission can usually still be strengthened before a decision is made. Where earlier paperwork was handled by someone else, a second opinion on the existing file is often the fastest way to identify the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa risk. Other useful references include the partner visa document checklist, the guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship, the Form 956 and 956A article on appointing a representative, and the section 56 request article for applicants already asked for more information about Schedule 3. If the Department has issued a section 57 natural justice letter about Schedule 3, the response is often the last chance to put the compelling reasons before the delegate. Changes in circumstances after lodgement, such as the birth of a child, should be notified using Form 1022 and can strengthen a waiver request.

For processing expectations once the application is lodged, see the Subclass 820 processing time guide and the article on how long an onshore partner visa takes. The Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 comparison explains the two stages, and the Subclass 820 service page explains how the firm runs onshore matters. Couples in a de facto relationship face the same Schedule 3 rules as married couples, and so do same-sex couples applying through the LGBTI partner visa pathway. By contrast, Schedule 3 criteria do not apply to protection visa applicants, which is why the protection visa bridging visa article follows different rules.

How My Migration Lawyers Helps With Partner Visa Schedule 3 Bridging Visa Matters

My Migration Lawyers treats every partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa matter as a status audit first and a waiver case second. The most valuable work is often done before lodgement, by identifying whether a substantive visa is still held and whether Schedule 3 can be avoided altogether.

On these matters, the firm's work follows a clear sequence:

• Reconstruct the visa history. My Migration Lawyers checks VEVO and the client's Department and Tribunal records to identify the last substantive visa, the date it ended, every bridging visa held since, and every condition attached.
• Decide whether Schedule 3 is engaged. If a substantive visa is still in effect, including where a Bridging visa A has been granted but is not yet in effect, the firm prepares the application for lodgement before the substantive visa ends.
• Resolve validity barriers. The firm identifies any section 48 bar and the additional Subclass 801 requirements in paragraph 1124B(3)(e), and any condition 8503 or similar condition that must be addressed before a valid application can be made.
• Assess criteria 3001 and 3004 and the waiver. The firm works through the 28 day count, each requirement of criterion 3004, and the compelling reasons that genuinely exist on the evidence, including children, health, compliance history and the reasons the earlier applications were made.
• Present the client's evidence. The firm prepares written submissions on Schedule 3 and the waiver, supported by the client's own statements and documents, reviewed and corrected by the client, together with the relationship evidence the Subclass 820 requires.
• Explain the resulting bridging visa. Before lodgement, the couple is told whether the partner application will produce a Bridging visa C or a Bridging visa E, and what that means for work and travel.
• Act on refusal. If a refusal issues, the firm identifies the review deadline immediately and prepares the ART application and the Schedule 3 submissions for the Tribunal.

My Migration Lawyers acts in many partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa matters, including applicants on a Bridging visa A after a refused application, applicants who travelled on a Bridging visa B, applicants on a Bridging visa C or Bridging visa E, and applicants with a section 48 bar. These cases are often complex, and the firm is equipped to handle them. Matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. No outcome can be promised in any migration matter, but an accurate assessment of the partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa position before lodgement is what prevents avoidable refusals.

The firm acts for clients across Australia, including through its partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. Consultations are held by video, so location is no barrier. You can learn more about My Migration Lawyers, its partner visa lawyers and its visa refusals practice, or read what to expect from a consultation. If your situation is time critical, the guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains how to get help quickly.

If you hold a bridging visa and are planning to lodge a partner visa, if your substantive visa is about to end, or if your Subclass 820 has been refused on Schedule 3 grounds, obtain advice before you act.

Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your partner visa Schedule 3 bridging visa position assessed. You can also call 1300 040 300.