Partner Visa Schedule 3 After Your Visa Expired

Partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases are decided, more than anything else, by the calendar. If your visa has expired and you want to apply for an onshore partner visa, the number of days between the end of your last substantive visa and the lodgement of your Subclass 820 application determines how Schedule 3 to the Migration Regulations 1994 operates. In partner visa schedule 3 visa expired situations, a gap of 20 days and a gap of 20 months are treated very differently.

This article explains the timing mechanics. It covers the 28-day window in criterion 3001 and how it is counted, what changes on day 29, how a bridging visa held in between affects the count, why a cancelled visa differs from an expired one, what a refused application that was pending does to the start date, and how criteria 3003 and 3004 fit in. It also explains why compelling reasons are assessed at the time of decision, works through clearly hypothetical timelines, and sets out what to do immediately after a visa expires. For the commercial service that handles these applications, see the Schedule 3 waiver partner visa service. For the wider onshore and offshore picture, see the complete guide to partner visas in Australia.

What Does Schedule 3 Mean When Your Visa Has Expired?

Schedule 3 is a set of additional criteria that apply to an onshore Subclass 820 applicant who does not hold a substantive visa when the application is made. If your visa has expired and you have not been granted another substantive visa, you are in that group. Clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of Schedule 2 requires such an applicant to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria.

A substantive visa is defined in subsection 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 as a visa other than a bridging visa, a criminal justice visa or an enforcement visa. A visitor visa, student visa, working holiday visa or temporary skilled visa is a substantive visa. A Bridging visa A, B, C or E is not. That definition is the starting point for every partner visa schedule 3 visa expired assessment, because it decides whether Schedule 3 applies at all and which day the 28-day count runs from.

Departmental policy explains the purpose of Schedule 3 plainly. It is designed to encourage people with a legitimate basis for staying to apply before their substantive visa ceases, to discourage people from staying beyond their visa, and to prevent people from gaining an advantage by remaining unlawfully. The same policy recognises that some people end up without a substantive visa through circumstances beyond their control, and that compelling reasons can justify a grant. Both halves of that policy matter in partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases.

Schedule 3 is not a bar to lodging. Departmental policy confirms that criteria 3001 and 3002 do not prevent a valid visa application from being made. They operate at the decision stage. If the criterion is not met and no waiver is granted, the Subclass 820 cannot be granted. The Schedule 3 criteria guide explains the criteria in general terms, and the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver article explains the waiver itself. This article focuses on how time changes the analysis.

Schedule 3 does not apply to every partner applicant

Schedule 3 applies only if you do not hold a substantive visa at the time of application. If your visitor, student or work visa is still in effect on the day you lodge, Schedule 3 is not engaged, even if that visa ends the next day. That is why the most valuable timing advice in partner visa schedule 3 visa expired matters is often given before the visa expires. The Subclass 820 visa service page explains the onshore application, and the Subclass 820 partner visa guide sets out the full criteria.

Schedule 3 is also separate from validity bars. A no further stay condition such as condition 8503, or a section 48 bar after a refusal or certain cancellations, can prevent a valid application from being made at all. Those questions must be answered first. The condition 8503 article explains the no further stay problem in detail.

Why Timing Decides Partner Visa Schedule 3 Visa Expired Cases

Timing decides partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases because criterion 3001 is a time limit, and because the length of time a person has been without a substantive visa is one of the factors the decision maker weighs when deciding whether compelling reasons exist. The calendar therefore affects both the criterion and the waiver.

Criterion 3001 sets a 28-day time limit. Departmental policy for Schedule 3 states that the purpose of criteria 3001 and 3002 is to impose a time limit on applying for a visa, and that the time limit is the only difference between them. Criterion 3002 sets a 12-month limit and applies to some other visa subclasses. For an ordinary Subclass 820 applicant under clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii), the relevant criterion is 3001 and the relevant limit is 28 days.

The waiver analysis is also time sensitive. The departmental policy for the Subclass 820 lists matters delegates should consider when deciding whether compelling reasons exist. They include the length of time the applicant has been an unlawful non-citizen in Australia, the reasons why the applicant became unlawful, and the reasons why the applicant did not seek to become lawful sooner. Every one of those factors is about time. In partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases, a short gap followed by prompt action reads very differently from a long gap with no explanation.

Time also affects options outside Schedule 3. The bridging visa available to you, the risk of compliance action and the consequences of leaving Australia all change as the days pass. That is why partner visa schedule 3 visa expired matters should be treated as urgent from the first day after expiry. The urgent immigration lawyer advice guide explains how to get advice quickly when time matters.

How Is the 28-Day Window in Criterion 3001 Counted?

The 28-day window in criterion 3001 is counted from the day after the last day you held a substantive visa. The application must be lodged on or before midnight on the 28th day. This is the core rule in partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases, and it is worth understanding precisely.

The relevant day under criterion 3001

Under criterion 3001(2)(c), for a person 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, the relevant day is the later of the last day the applicant held a substantive or criminal justice visa and the day the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully. Paragraphs 3001(2)(a) and (b) deal with pre-1994 situations and are now historical in operation.

Departmental policy explains that "last" means exactly what it says. If you have held more than one substantive visa, the time limit runs from the cessation of the last one. In practical terms, for most partner visa schedule 3 visa expired applicants, the relevant day is the last day of the visitor, student, working holiday or work visa they most recently held.

Day 1 is the day after the visa ended

The first of the 28 calendar days is the day after the event that triggers the criterion. For a person whose substantive visa ceased, the first day is the day after the last day they held the visa. Calendar days are counted, not business days. Weekends and public holidays in the middle of the period count as ordinary days.

Consider a hypothetical applicant whose visitor visa was in effect until the end of 10 March. The first day of the window is 11 March. The 28th day is 7 April. A valid Subclass 820 application lodged on or before midnight on 7 April satisfies criterion 3001. An application lodged on 8 April does not.

When the 28th day falls on a weekend or public holiday

Departmental policy provides a concession at the end of the period only. If the 28th day falls on a weekend, or on a public holiday or bank holiday in any place in Australia where the application could have been made, the criterion is satisfied if the application is lodged on or before midnight on the first following day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, public holiday or bank holiday.

The policy gives an example. An application lodged in Sydney on the 29th day can still satisfy the criterion if the 28th day was not a holiday in Sydney but was a public holiday or bank holiday in Melbourne, Canberra or another place in Australia where the application could have been made. In partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases close to the line, this rule can decide the outcome, but it should never be relied on as a planning tool. Lodge early.

Getting the exact date right

The most common error in partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases is using the wrong end date. Visa labels and grant letters can be misread. A visa can cease earlier than the applicant expected, for example when another visa is granted, when a visa is cancelled, or when a condition about the period of stay is misunderstood. Departmental policy for criterion 3004 itself recognises that a visa may cease earlier than the date the holder believed.

My Migration Lawyers does not ask clients to produce old grant notices or bridging visa letters they do not have. The firm checks your status through VEVO and Department records using the passport details on file, and confirms the date your last substantive visa ceased before any advice is given on the 28-day window. If you are unsure of your current status, the Bridging visas in Australia guide explains the different visa types you may be holding.

Does Lodging Within 28 Days Avoid Schedule 3 Completely?

No. Lodging within 28 days satisfies criterion 3001 only. Criterion 3004 is a separate criterion, and on its terms it can still apply to an applicant who lodged inside the window. This is the point most online commentary on partner visa schedule 3 visa expired situations gets wrong.

Clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) requires the applicant to satisfy criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the Minister is satisfied there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria. Satisfying 3001 does not satisfy the other two. Criterion 3003 is historical, as explained below, and is usually satisfied without further enquiry for recent applicants. Criterion 3004 is different.

Departmental policy states that criterion 3004 applies if the applicant ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994, or entered Australia unlawfully on or after that date, and has not subsequently been granted a substantive visa. A person whose visa expired last month falls within that description. Where 3004 applies, the decision maker must be satisfied of six separate matters in paragraphs 3004(c) to (h), including that the applicant became a person without a substantive visa because of factors beyond their control.

The practical message is simple. Lodging within 28 days is always better than lodging after it, because criterion 3001 is then met and the applicant's account of a short gap is far stronger. But a partner visa schedule 3 visa expired application lodged inside the window still needs the 3004 position assessed, and where 3004 may not be met, the application should include submissions and evidence on compelling reasons for not applying the criteria. This is why My Migration Lawyers analyses each criterion separately in every partner visa schedule 3 visa expired matter. The partner visa lawyers page explains how the firm runs onshore partner applications, and the Subclass 820 visa guide explains the application stages.

What Happens on Day 29 and After?

On day 29, criterion 3001 can no longer be satisfied, but a valid Subclass 820 application can still be made. From that day, the partner visa can only be granted if the Department, or the Tribunal on review, is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004. Every partner visa schedule 3 visa expired case lodged after day 28 is a compelling reasons case. The Subclass 820 visa overview explains the rest of the onshore criteria, which must also be met.

Departmental policy says that where a person seeks to apply in circumstances where they appear unable to meet the time limit, officers may inform them of the effect of the criterion, but the person is not prevented from applying. The application is valid if the other validity requirements in Schedule 1 are met. The person then receives the bridging visa that the law allows, usually a Bridging visa C if they have not held a Bridging visa E since their last substantive visa. The decision on the Subclass 820 itself then turns on the waiver.

There is no second deadline after day 28. The law does not create a further cut-off at 60 days, 6 months or 12 months for the Subclass 820. What changes after day 28 is the weight of the history. Departmental policy for the Subclass 820 gives an example of where compelling reasons may not exist: 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 the hardship of separation. Each month that passes without action moves a partner visa schedule 3 visa expired applicant closer to that example.

The relationship alone is generally not a compelling reason

Departmental policy states that, as a general rule, a genuine spouse or de facto relationship and the hardship of separation if the applicant must apply offshore are not compelling reasons. The reason given is that a genuine relationship is the basis of every partner visa application. The same policy accepts that where there is an Australian citizen child with a demonstrable link to the applicant, a decision may be made to waive the Schedule 3 criteria in the best interests of the child.

This is why partner visa schedule 3 visa expired applications lodged late cannot rest on relationship evidence alone. The relationship still has to be proved, through the relationship statement, Form 888 statements and documents across the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment. But the waiver depends on something more.

The offshore alternative is part of the analysis

Departmental policy says the waiver provisions are not intended to give an unfair advantage to people who can leave Australia and apply for a partner visa outside Australia. Where it is reasonable to expect the applicant to leave and apply offshore, the waiver is unlikely to be exercised. In some partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases, an offshore Subclass 309 application is genuinely the safer course. In others, children, care obligations, health or other circumstances make an onshore application more appropriate. That choice must be made with advice, before any departure.

Does a Bridging Visa Stop the 28-Day Clock?

No. A bridging visa does not stop, pause or restart the 28-day count in criterion 3001, because a bridging visa is not a substantive visa. The relevant day remains the last day you held a substantive visa, regardless of how many bridging visas you have held since. This is the most misunderstood point in partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases.

Many applicants believe that because they are lawful on a bridging visa, they are not in a Schedule 3 situation. Being lawful and holding a substantive visa are different things. A person holding only a bridging visa at the time of the Subclass 820 application is not the holder of a substantive visa, so clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) applies, and the 28 days are counted back to the end of the last substantive visa.

Bridging visa A from a pending application

The common pattern is this. A person holds a student or work visa. Before it ends, they apply for another visa and are granted a Bridging visa A. The Bridging visa A comes into effect when the substantive visa ceases. The person remains lawful while the other application is processed. If they later lodge a Subclass 820 while on that Bridging visa A, Schedule 3 applies, and the 28 days ran from the day after the old substantive visa ended. By the time the partner application is lodged, the window has usually long closed.

This pattern produces more partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases than simple overstays. The Bridging visa A guide explains how that visa works, and the Subclass 820 work rights and bridging visa article explains the bridging visa a partner applicant receives after lodging. Neither changes the Schedule 3 timing.

Travel on a Bridging visa B

Travel does not reset the count either. A person who leaves and returns on a Bridging visa B re-enters Australia on a bridging visa, not a substantive visa. 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 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.

Bridging visa C and Bridging visa E

A Bridging visa C or Bridging visa E held after a visa expired is also not a substantive visa. It does not restart the 28 days. These bridging visas also bring conditions, such as a no work condition, and paragraph 3004(e) requires the decision maker to be satisfied that the applicant substantially complied with the conditions of their last visa, including any subsequent bridging visa. In partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases, a breach of a bridging visa condition can therefore create a further problem under criterion 3004.

There is also a bridging visa trap at the start. If a person whose visa has expired contacts the Department and is granted a Bridging visa E before lodging the partner application, a Bridging visa C may no longer be available to them, because item 1303 of Schedule 1 requires that the applicant has not held a Bridging visa E since last holding a substantive visa. The sequence of steps in the first days after expiry therefore matters.

Expired Visa or Cancelled Visa: Does It Change the Timing?

Yes, it can. An expired visa ends at the end of its visa period. A cancelled visa ends when it is cancelled. In both cases, the relevant day for criterion 3001 is the last day the applicant held the substantive visa, so for a cancelled visa the 28 days run from the day after cancellation, not from the date the visa would otherwise have expired.

That difference has real consequences in partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases. A person whose student visa was cancelled months before its printed expiry date may believe they are still inside the visa period, when in fact the clock started on the day after cancellation. Departmental policy for criterion 3004 notes that claims of being unaware of having no substantive visa are considered case by case, and that a lack of awareness may be attributable to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, for example where a visa was not correctly evidenced and ceased earlier than the date on the label. Mere unawareness is not enough.

Cancellation can also create a section 48 bar

Cancellation brings an additional issue that expiry does not. Section 48 of the Act limits the visas that can be applied for in Australia by a person who does not hold a substantive visa and who, since last entering Australia, has had a visa refused or has held a visa that was cancelled under certain provisions. 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 associated Subclass 801 application, including a sponsorship form completed and signed by the sponsoring partner at the time of lodgement. If those requirements are missed, the combined application is invalid.

The visa cancellations service page explains how cancellation matters are handled. Where a cancellation is under review, or a revocation request is pending, the interaction between that process and the partner visa schedule 3 visa expired timing is technical and must be assessed on the facts. Cancellations made on character grounds raise further issues that are outside the scope of this article.

Cancellation and the waiver

The reason for cancellation also feeds into the waiver. Departmental policy for the Subclass 820 directs delegates to consider any history of non-compliance with visa conditions and the reasons why the applicant became unlawful. A cancellation for breach of a condition is part of that history. A cancellation for reasons outside the applicant's control may support the waiver. The facts must be presented accurately and with evidence. In partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases involving a cancellation, the firm's visa refusals practice reviews the cancellation history as part of the Schedule 3 assessment.

What If a Pending Application Was Refused?

A refused application that was pending does not move the start date for criterion 3001. If you held a bridging visa while that application was processed, the 28 days began on the day after your last substantive visa ended, not on the day of the refusal and not on the day your bridging visa ceased. In partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases built on an earlier refusal, the window has usually closed long before the partner application is considered.

This is one of the most damaging misunderstandings in the onshore caseload. Applicants often say their visa "expired" when the Bridging visa A ended after the refusal. Legally, the substantive visa expired much earlier. The bridging visa kept them lawful, but it did not hold the 28-day window open.

Section 48 after a refusal

A refusal since last entry also usually engages section 48 if the applicant does not hold a substantive visa. As explained above, regulation 2.12 allows the Subclass 820 application to be made, but the additional requirements in paragraph 1124B(3)(e) must be met at lodgement. The partner visa after visa refusal article explains section 48 for partner applicants in more detail.

Review of the earlier refusal runs separately

If the earlier refusal is still within time for review, that review deadline must be managed separately. The deadline to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) is short, runs from notification of the decision, is strictly applied, and the Tribunal cannot extend it. The ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. The guide to what to expect after a refusal goes to the ART explains how review runs. A pending review keeps a bridging visa in place, but it does not restart the criterion 3001 count for a later partner application.

Lodging the partner application before the substantive visa ends

The best way to avoid this problem is timing at the front end. A person in a genuine relationship who holds a substantive visa and is considering another visa application near expiry should consider whether the Subclass 820 should be lodged while the substantive visa is still in effect. If it is, Schedule 3 is not engaged at all. That decision depends on eligibility, the conditions of the current visa, and the strength of the relationship evidence, and it should be made with advice. The tourist visa to partner visa article explains the visitor visa version of this decision.

Criteria 3003 and 3004 in Partner Visa Schedule 3 Visa Expired Cases

Criterion 3003 rarely affects recent overstayers, while criterion 3004 applies to almost every partner visa schedule 3 visa expired applicant whose visa ended on or after 1 September 1994 and who has not since been granted a substantive visa. Departmental policy describes the two as companion criteria that are essentially the same in content.

Criterion 3003

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. If either of those limbs does not apply, the applicant satisfies criterion 3003 without further enquiry. For almost all current applicants, criterion 3003 is therefore not a live issue.

Criterion 3004 and its six requirements

Where criterion 3004 applies, the decision maker must be satisfied of all six matters in paragraphs 3004(c) to (h). In summary, drawn from departmental policy:

• 3004(c): the applicant became a person without a substantive visa because of factors beyond their control. Two things are required: there must be factors that caused the applicant to be without a substantive visa, and those factors must have been beyond their control. Causation matters.
• 3004(d): there are compelling reasons for granting the visa. Compelling is given its ordinary meaning, and all the circumstances are considered individually and cumulatively.
• 3004(e): the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of their last visa, including any subsequent bridging visa.
• 3004(f): the applicant would have been entitled to be granted the visa had they applied for it on the day they last held a substantive visa, or, for an unlawful entrant, on the day of their last unlawful entry.
• 3004(g): the applicant intends to comply with any conditions of the visa granted.
• 3004(h): the last visa or entry permit held was not subject to a pre-1 September 1994 no further stay condition.

What "beyond the applicant's control" means

Departmental policy says the phrase is given its natural meaning and asks whether the applicant became unlawful because of circumstances external to them. A serious accident or illness that left the applicant unable to apply may meet the test. Claims that the applicant did not know their visa had ended, or misunderstood its period or conditions, are harder and are assessed case by case. Claims of incorrect departmental advice are checked with the office concerned.

Policy also addresses two situations that arise often in partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases. First, an applicant who lodged an application that was later found invalid may have become unlawful without knowing it, and it may be reasonable to treat that as beyond their control if they acted promptly once they found out. Second, the failure of a representative to lodge in time is generally treated as the applicant's own failure, although policy accepts that negligence by a migration agent who has since been deregistered may be treated as beyond the applicant's control. These are fact-sensitive questions.

How 3004 links to the waiver

Clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) allows the Minister not to apply criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 where there are compelling reasons. Where 3004 cannot be satisfied on its terms, for example because the overstay was not caused by factors beyond the applicant's control, the waiver is the path to grant. That is why a partner visa schedule 3 visa expired application should address both: whether each criterion is met, and, if not, why there are compelling reasons for not applying them.

Compelling Reasons Are Assessed at the Time of Decision

Compelling reasons are assessed at the time of decision, not only at the time of application. The Full Federal Court held in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32 that circumstances arising up to and including the time of decision can be compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria. Departmental policy for both Schedule 3 and the Subclass 820 reflects that decision.

This matters in partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases because the position can change during processing. The birth of an Australian citizen child, a serious illness in the family, or new caring responsibilities may arise after lodgement. Departmental policy states that delegates must have regard to submissions about compelling reasons occurring after the date of application that continue to exist at the time of decision.

Two practical consequences follow. First, the case is not frozen at lodgement. Submissions and evidence should be updated as circumstances change, and changes should be notified to the Department, for example through Form 1022 where that form applies. Second, the reverse is also true. Circumstances relied on at lodgement may have ended by the time of decision, and the case must still hold up on the facts at that later date. A partner visa schedule 3 visa expired case that relied on one factor at lodgement and was never updated is vulnerable. Processing can take a long time, as the Subclass 820 processing time article explains, so partner visa schedule 3 visa expired applicants should expect their circumstances to be reviewed again before decision.

Requests for information and natural justice letters

During processing, the Department may ask for more information or put adverse information to you. A section 56 request or a section 57 natural justice letter in a partner visa schedule 3 visa expired case is often the point at which the Schedule 3 position is decided. Responses must be complete, accurate and on time.

Hypothetical Timelines: How the Days Change the Outcome

The following timelines are hypothetical. They are not client stories. They show how the same relationship can produce very different partner visa schedule 3 visa expired outcomes depending only on dates.

Timeline 1: lodged on day 12

A hypothetical applicant holds a visitor visa without a no further stay condition. It ceases at the end of 2 May. The applicant and their Australian partner have lived together for over a year. They obtain advice on 5 May and lodge a valid Subclass 820 application on 14 May, which is day 12.

Criterion 3001 is satisfied. Criterion 3003 is satisfied without enquiry. Criterion 3004 applies on its terms, because the applicant ceased to hold a substantive visa after 1 September 1994 and has not since been granted one. The application therefore addresses 3004 directly, including why the applicant did not apply before the visa ended, and includes submissions on compelling reasons in case 3004 is not met. The short gap and prompt action are strong facts in this partner visa schedule 3 visa expired case.

Timeline 2: lodged on day 45

The same applicant waits. They lodge on 16 June, which is day 45. Criterion 3001 is not met. The case now depends entirely on compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria. The applicant must explain why they did not apply before the visa ended and why they did not apply within 28 days. If the only explanation is that they were preparing documents, that will generally carry little weight. The relationship alone is generally not a compelling reason. In partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases like this, 33 extra days can turn a straightforward application into a contested one.

Timeline 3: two years on a Bridging visa A

A different hypothetical applicant holds a student visa that ceases on 30 June of year one. Before it ceases, they apply for a further temporary visa and are granted a Bridging visa A. That application is refused in year two and the refusal is reviewed. In year three, while still on the Bridging visa A, they lodge a Subclass 820.

The applicant believes their visa "expired" only recently. Legally, their last substantive visa ceased on 30 June of year one. The 28 days ended in July of year one. Criterion 3001 is not met. Section 48 is also likely to apply because of the refusal, so the paragraph 1124B(3)(e) requirements must be met at lodgement. This is a partner visa schedule 3 visa expired case in substance, even though the applicant was lawful throughout. The comparison of Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 explains how the temporary and permanent stages of the combined application relate.

Timeline 4: cancelled before the printed expiry

A hypothetical applicant's student visa is cancelled on 1 March, although the visa label shows an expiry date in December. The applicant lodges a Subclass 820 in April, believing they are still within their visa period. The 28 days ran from 2 March, so the window closed at the end of 29 March. Criterion 3001 is not met, section 48 may apply, and the reasons for cancellation become part of the compelling reasons analysis.

Timeline 5: a new compelling reason during processing

A hypothetical applicant lodges on day 60. At lodgement, the compelling reasons case is modest. During processing, the couple's child is born in Australia and is an Australian citizen. Because compelling reasons are assessed at the time of decision, the applicant can rely on that change, provided it is notified and evidenced and continues to exist when the decision is made. Departmental policy accepts that an Australian citizen child with a demonstrable link to the applicant may support a waiver in the best interests of the child.

Why Every Day Matters After a Visa Expires

Every day matters after a visa expires because the 28-day window in criterion 3001 is fixed, because the length of unlawful stay is a factor in the waiver, and because options such as a Bridging visa C or a departure without an exclusion period can disappear as time passes. In partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases, delay rarely helps and often harms.

The window closes on a fixed date

There is no discretion to extend the criterion 3001 period. The only adjustment is the weekend and holiday rule at the end of the period. Once the period closes, the application becomes a compelling reasons case permanently.

The length of unlawful stay is weighed

Departmental policy for the Subclass 820 lists the length of time the applicant has been unlawful and the reasons they did not seek to become lawful sooner as factors in the compelling reasons assessment. An applicant who acted within days has a credible account. An applicant who waited months must explain the delay. The Subclass 820 visa refusals article and the guide to why partner visas get refused both show how delay features in refusals.

Departure consequences change after 28 days

Leaving Australia while unlawful can create a three-year exclusion period under public interest criterion 4014 for some later visas that include that criterion. There are exceptions, including where the person left within 28 days after their substantive visa ceased. A person in a partner visa schedule 3 visa expired situation who is considering leaving should get advice before booking a flight, because the same 28-day period that matters for criterion 3001 can also matter for PIC 4014.

Compliance risk grows over time

An unlawful non-citizen can be located, detained and removed. The longer a person remains without a visa, the greater the risk that compliance action occurs before a valid application is lodged. A valid Subclass 820 application usually produces a bridging visa that makes the applicant lawful again, which is why preparing and lodging a valid application promptly is the priority in most partner visa schedule 3 visa expired matters.

What Tribunal Decisions Show About Partner Visa Schedule 3 Visa Expired Timing

Tribunal decisions show that partner visa schedule 3 visa expired timing is regularly litigated, and that the reviewing Tribunal looks closely at when the last substantive visa ended and what happened afterwards. In each decision below, the Tribunal remitted the matter, which means it sent the application back to the Department to reconsider. A remittal is not a grant. All six are decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was replaced by the ART on 14 October 2024. Each is described only by the issues it was reported on:

• Raganas (Migration) [2020] AATA 2401 (Subclass 820): no substantive visa at time of application, or within 28 days prior; last substantive visa more than three years prior.
• Namsombun (Migration) [2020] AATA 2611 (Subclass 820): application made more than 28 days after last substantive visa held; bridging visa pending review of refusal of further student visa.
• Yuan (Migration) [2024] AATA 3638 (Subclass 820): application made more than 28 days after last substantive visa held; bridging visa later granted in association with another review application; cumulative factors.
• 1814075 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3700 (Subclass 820): application made more than 28 days after last substantive visa held; two periods of unlawful residence and bridging visas; length of relationship.
• Bamba (Migration) [2020] AATA 1868 (Subclass 820): applicant on bridging visa after lengthy unlawful residence; application lodged more than 28 days after applicant last held substantive visa; waiver of criterion.
• 1814675 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3017 (Subclass 820): application made more than 28 days after last substantive visa held; cancellation of student visa and lengthy unlawful stay.

The reported issues reflect the timing mechanics explained above. Several involve applicants who held bridging visas after their last substantive visa, including a bridging visa pending review of an earlier refusal, and in each the application was still described as made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa. One involves a cancelled student visa followed by a lengthy unlawful stay. In every case, the compelling reasons question was sent back for reconsideration rather than decided in the applicant's favour. None of these decisions is a guide to the outcome of any other case. Each turned on its own evidence.

If the Department has already refused your Subclass 820 on Schedule 3 grounds, the partner visa refusals page, the partner visa refusal appeal options article and the visa appeal lawyer guide explain the next steps. The review deadline is short, runs from notification, is strictly applied and cannot be extended by the Tribunal, so read the refusal letter on the day it arrives. Matters that go beyond the Tribunal are covered on the judicial review page. Where family violence has occurred, the partner visa family violence page explains the separate provisions in Division 1.5 of the Regulations.

What to Do Immediately After Your Visa Expires

Act immediately, get advice before you lodge, contact the Department or leave Australia, and let your lawyer confirm your exact status. In partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases, the first few days decide whether criterion 3001 can still be met. The immigration lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane pages are another way to reach the firm when the matter is urgent.

Step 1: get advice the same week

Speak to a lawyer who regularly handles onshore partner applications and partner visa schedule 3 visa expired matters. The partner visa lawyer guide and the article on using an immigration lawyer for a partner visa explain what that work involves. The immigration lawyer consultation guide explains what happens in a consultation. If you have already started an application yourself, the article on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodgement explains how a lawyer can step in.

Step 2: do not leave Australia without advice

Leaving may seem like the simple answer, but it can create an exclusion period, end any bridging visa in effect, and remove the onshore option altogether. In some cases an offshore application is the right course. That decision should follow advice on your facts.

Step 3: let the firm confirm your status

You do not need to find old grant notices, bridging visa letters or previous application forms. My Migration Lawyers checks VEVO and Department records itself, using your passport details, to confirm the date your last substantive visa ceased, any bridging visas since, any conditions, and any refusal or cancellation since your last entry. That is the foundation of every partner visa schedule 3 visa expired assessment.

Step 4: check validity bars before anything else

The firm checks for condition 8503 or another no further stay condition, a section 48 bar, and immigration clearance issues. If a bar applies, it must be dealt with before a valid application can be made.

Step 5: be careful about contacting the Department

Contacting the Department before you lodge can lead to the grant of a Bridging visa E, which may affect your eligibility for a Bridging visa C when you lodge the partner application. It can also lead to compliance action. Any contact should be planned with your lawyer.

Step 6: gather what you can readily produce

Collect evidence of the relationship and the circumstances that may support compelling reasons, such as birth certificates of Australian citizen children, evidence of caring responsibilities and medical evidence where relevant. The partner visa document checklist and the guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explain the relationship evidence. The 2026 Subclass 820 evidence checklist sets out the documents commonly provided.

Step 7: lodge a valid application promptly

Lodge the combined Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application through ImmiAccount as soon as it is ready, with submissions that address criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 and compelling reasons. Your lawyer's appointment is recorded through Form 956. After lodgement, comply strictly with every condition of the bridging visa you receive.

Common Timing Mistakes in Partner Visa Schedule 3 Visa Expired Cases

The common timing mistakes in partner visa schedule 3 visa expired cases are avoidable. Most come from treating lawful status, bridging visas or refusal dates as if they were the end of the last substantive visa.

• Counting from the wrong day. The count starts the day after the last day the substantive visa was held, not from the date a bridging visa ended or a refusal issued.
• Assuming a bridging visa stops the clock. It does not.
• Assuming the printed expiry date applies after a cancellation. The count runs from the day after cancellation.
• Treating day 28 as a target. The weekend and holiday rule is narrow. Lodge as early as possible.
• Assuming the 28 days solve everything. Criterion 3004 is a separate test.
• Relying on the relationship alone after day 28. Departmental policy treats a genuine relationship and separation hardship as generally not compelling.
• Leaving Australia without advice. Departure can create an exclusion period and end the onshore option.
• Contacting the Department before planning the lodgement. This can affect bridging visa eligibility and invite compliance action.
• Failing to update the case during processing. Compelling reasons are assessed at the time of decision.
• Lodging an invalid application. A section 48 or condition 8503 problem can make the application invalid, leaving the applicant unlawful and the clock still running.

If you already have a representative and are unsure whether these issues were considered, an immigration lawyer second opinion can test the timing analysis before the Department decides. The guide to changing immigration lawyer in Australia explains how a change works.

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

My Migration Lawyers acts in many partner visa schedule 3 visa expired matters, including applicants inside the 28-day window, applicants who are months or years past it, applicants on a Bridging visa A after a refused application, and applicants whose visa was cancelled. These cases are often complex, and the firm is equipped to handle them. Matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer.

The firm's work on a partner visa schedule 3 visa expired matter follows a set sequence:

• Status and dates. The firm confirms through VEVO and Department records the date your last substantive visa ceased, how it ceased, every bridging visa since, and any refusal or cancellation since your last entry. You are not asked for records you do not have.
• The 28-day calculation. The firm counts the window from the correct relevant day, applies the weekend and holiday rule where it matters, and tells you plainly whether criterion 3001 can still be met.
• Validity. The firm checks condition 8503, section 48 and the paragraph 1124B(3)(e) requirements, and resolves any bar before lodgement.
• Criteria analysis. The firm applies criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 to your dates and identifies whether a compelling reasons case is required.
• Compelling reasons. The firm identifies the circumstances that genuinely exist, such as Australian citizen children, caring responsibilities or circumstances beyond your control, and presents your own account and evidence in the form the law requires. Your statements are your own evidence, reviewed and corrected by you.
• Departure and bridging visa advice. The firm advises on whether to stay or leave, the bridging visa you will receive, and the conditions you must comply with.
• Lodgement and updates. The firm lodges a valid combined application and updates the compelling reasons case as circumstances change, because the assessment is made at the time of decision.
• Refusal and review. If a refusal issues, the firm identifies the review deadline immediately and prepares the ART application and submissions.

No outcome can be promised in any migration matter. What careful timing analysis does is prevent avoidable errors and put the strongest accurate case before the decision maker.

The firm acts for clients across Australia 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.

If your visa has expired, if it is about to expire, or if your Subclass 820 has been refused on Schedule 3 grounds, obtain advice before you act. In a partner visa schedule 3 visa expired case, the days you save at the start can decide the outcome.

Book a consultation

You can also call 1300 040 300.