Partner Visa Second Stage Refusal: Review Rights and Options

A partner visa second stage refused by the Department of Home Affairs means the permanent Subclass 801 visa has been refused after the applicant had already been granted the temporary Subclass 820 visa. If you have had your partner visa second stage refused, the decision affects your temporary visa, your bridging visa, your right to stay in Australia and your next steps, and the time to act is short.

This guide is written only for the permanent stage. It explains what happens when people have their partner visa second stage refused: why the Subclass 801 is refused, what happens to the Subclass 820 visa, which bridging visa keeps you lawful, who can apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal, what the Tribunal reconsiders, and how the family violence, death of sponsor and child provisions work at this stage. It also covers the parallel offshore position where a Subclass 100 visa is refused. For a general overview of every partner visa subclass, see our complete guide to partner visas in Australia. For refusals at the first stage, see our article on why Subclass 820 partner visas are refused.

Many couples assume that once the Subclass 820 is granted, permanent residence is a formality. It is not. The Department makes a fresh decision at the second stage, and a partner visa second stage refused by the Department carries consequences that a first stage refusal does not, because the applicant loses a visa they already held.

What does "second stage" mean in a partner visa?

The second stage of a partner visa is the permanent stage: the Subclass 801 visa for applicants who applied in Australia, and the Subclass 100 visa for applicants who applied outside Australia. The onshore partner visa is lodged as one combined application for the temporary Subclass 820 visa and the permanent Subclass 801 visa. The Department decides the Subclass 820 first. It decides the Subclass 801 later.

Under the Subclass 801 criteria, the applicant generally becomes eligible for the permanent visa once at least two years have passed since the combined application was made. The Department contacts the applicant near that point and asks for updated information and evidence through ImmiAccount. Our Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 guide explains how the two stages fit together.

Why the second stage is a separate decision

The Department's own policy for the Subclass 801 describes the relationship assessment at the permanent stage as a fresh assessment, based on the evidence before the decision maker at the time of decision. The grant of the Subclass 820 does not bind the decision maker at the Subclass 801 stage. That is why a partner visa second stage refused by the Department can come as a shock to a couple who were approved two years earlier.

Long-term relationships and the second stage

Some couples never have a separate second stage. Where the couple was in a long-term partner relationship when the application was made, as defined in regulation 1.03 of the Migration Regulations 1994, the Subclass 801 can be assessed and granted immediately after the Subclass 820. This article is for applicants who held the Subclass 820 and then had the Subclass 801 refused.

Partner visa second stage refused: what the refusal decides

A partner visa second stage refused by the Department reflects a decision under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 that the applicant does not meet one or more criteria for the Subclass 801 visa at the time of decision. The decision record sets out the criteria the Department found were not met, the evidence it relied on and the applicant's review rights.

The refusal letter is the most important document in the matter. It identifies the exact criterion relied on, such as the requirement that the applicant continues to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner, the requirement that the applicant continues to be sponsored, or a public interest criterion such as character or health. Any review, and any later step, must deal with the criterion the decision maker actually relied on. Our page on partner visa refusals explains how My Migration Lawyers reads a refusal decision.

What the refusal does not decide

A partner visa second stage refused by the Department is not a finding that the applicant must leave Australia that day. It is not a cancellation of a permanent visa, because no permanent visa was granted. It is not the end of the matter where merits review is available. It is, however, a decision that ends the Subclass 820 and starts the review clock, and that is why the first days after the decision matter.

Why people have their partner visa second stage refused

The Subclass 801 is most often refused because the Department is not satisfied that the relationship is still genuine and continuing at the time of decision, but refusals also follow sponsor problems, character and health issues that arose after the Subclass 820 grant, and failures to respond to requests. Each reason below has a different review strategy. Our article on why partner visas get refused covers refusal reasons across both stages; this section deals only with the permanent stage.

The relationship has ended

Paragraph 801.221(2)(c) requires the applicant to continue to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner. If the couple has separated before the Subclass 801 is decided, this criterion cannot be met under the standard provision. The application can then succeed only under one of the special provisions explained below, which deal with family violence, the death of the sponsor and a child of the relationship. Where none of those provisions applies, a partner visa second stage refused for relationship breakdown is usually the expected result. Our article on what happens if the relationship breaks down explains the general position.

The relationship is not genuine and continuing at the time of decision

Some couples are still together, but the Department is not satisfied the relationship is genuine and continuing. This often happens where the evidence at the second stage is thin, where the couple has lived apart for work or family reasons, or where information received by the Department raises doubt. The Department assesses the four aspects of the relationship: the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects, and the nature of the commitment. Our guides to partner visa relationship evidence and preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explain what the Department looks for under each aspect.

Sponsor issues

Paragraph 801.221(2)(b) requires the applicant to continue to be sponsored by the sponsoring partner. If the sponsor withdraws the sponsorship, this criterion is generally not met. Sponsor issues can also arise where the application includes a child under 18, because the Department applies child protection requirements to the sponsor, including police checks. Our page on partner visa sponsorship limitations explains the sponsorship rules, and our article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa covers the limits on sponsorship.

Character and health issues arising after the Subclass 820 grant

The Subclass 801 has its own public interest criteria. Under clause 801.223, the applicant must satisfy public interest criteria including 4001 (character), 4002 (security), 4003, 4004 (debts to the Commonwealth), 4007 (health) and 4009, and the Australian values statement where it applies. Departmental policy states that applicants must provide current police certificates for any country they have lived in for a cumulative period of 12 months or more since the Subclass 820 was granted. A criminal charge, a conviction or an undisclosed matter that arises after the Subclass 820 grant can therefore lead to a partner visa second stage refused on character grounds, or to a decision under section 501. Our guide to completing Form 80 without errors explains the character forms the Department may request.

Health checks are not ordinarily repeated at the permanent stage. Departmental policy says repeat medical examinations are requested only in limited situations, such as where the Department has information that the applicant's health has changed, where a condition may not have been disclosed, or where the temporary visa ceased long before the permanent assessment began.

No response to a section 56 request or natural justice letter

The Department may issue a section 56 request for more information, or a natural justice letter inviting comment on adverse information before a decision is made. Departmental policy for the Subclass 801 states that, once reasonable efforts to contact the applicant have been made, the decision maker must proceed to decide the application on the information available. A partner visa second stage refused because nobody answered the Department is one of the most avoidable refusals. It often happens because the applicant changed email address or address and did not update the Department, which the law requires. Our articles on responding to a section 56 request and on responding to a section 57 natural justice letter explain those steps, and our guide to Form 1022 change of circumstances explains the duty to notify changes.

The Subclass 820 was cancelled before the decision

Paragraph 801.221(2)(a) and the special provisions all require the applicant to hold a Subclass 820 visa. Departmental policy describes a process where a Subclass 820 visa is cancelled because the relationship has broken down, natural justice is offered, and the Subclass 801 is then refused because the applicant no longer holds a Subclass 820. Where the Subclass 820 has been cancelled, the cancellation decision itself may have review rights, and the two decisions must be considered together. Our page on visa cancellations explains how cancellation works.

Partner visa second stage refused: what happens to the Subclass 820?

The Subclass 820 visa ends when the applicant is notified that the Subclass 801 application has been decided. Clause 820.511 provides that the Subclass 820 permits the holder to remain in Australia until they are notified that the Subclass 801 application has been decided, or until that application is withdrawn. So once you are notified that you have had your partner visa second stage refused, the Subclass 820 ceases at that point.

This is the most misunderstood part of having a partner visa second stage refused. Many applicants believe they keep the Subclass 820 while they seek review. They do not. The Subclass 820 is gone once the refusal is notified. What keeps the applicant lawful in Australia after that is a bridging visa, explained in the next section.

Family members included in the application

Members of the family unit who hold a Subclass 820 visa because they were included in the application are in the same position. Their Subclass 820 visas also cease on notification of the refusal of the primary applicant's Subclass 801. The Subclass 801 criteria for family members specifically allow for a family member whose Subclass 820 ceased in this way to be granted the Subclass 801 if the primary applicant later succeeds on review.

Why the timing of notification matters

Because the Subclass 820 ends on notification, the date of notification is critical. It affects when the bridging visa comes back into effect and when the review deadline starts to run. The method of notification, whether by email to the address given to the Department or otherwise, is governed by the notification provisions of the Migration Act 1958. Where there is any doubt about when or how the decision was notified, that question should be checked against the Department's records immediately, not assumed.

First steps when you have had your partner visa second stage refused

The first step after a partner visa second stage refused by the Department is to confirm three things: the date the refusal was notified, the bridging visa you now hold, and the deadline for review. Everything else depends on those three facts. A person who has had their partner visa second stage refused should not wait for a letter from the Tribunal, a call from the Department or a conversation with the sponsor before acting, because the review period runs regardless.

The second step is to read the reasons. A partner visa second stage refused for relationship breakdown needs a very different response from a partner visa second stage refused because a police certificate was not provided. The reasons tell you which criterion failed, and therefore what evidence the Tribunal will need to see.

The third step is to stay lawful. The applicant should not travel without first confirming the bridging visa position, should keep the Department informed of any change of address or email, and should not assume that the work and travel rights of the Subclass 820 continue. Our article on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application may assist couples who managed the earlier stages themselves and now face a refusal.

What not to do

Couples who have had their partner visa second stage refused sometimes make the position worse in the first weeks. Common mistakes include lodging a new onshore partner visa that is invalid because of section 48, leaving Australia without a Bridging Visa B and losing the ability to apply for review, sending the Department informal emails instead of applying to the Tribunal, and gathering evidence for months before lodging the review application. The review application comes first. Evidence can be developed after it is lodged.

The bridging visa after a partner visa second stage refused by the Department

When the Subclass 801 is refused while the applicant is in Australia, the bridging visa that was granted with the original combined application generally comes back into effect, and it keeps the applicant lawful while they make arrangements to leave or apply for review. Departmental policy for the Subclass 801 states that, on recording the refusal decision, the bridging visa held by the applicant comes into effect, and that it allows the applicant to remain lawfully in Australia after notification of the refusal while making arrangements to leave Australia or, if eligible, applying for review.

Which bridging visa you hold

The type of bridging visa depends on the applicant's status when the combined Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application was lodged, not on their status today. An applicant who held a substantive visa at lodgement was generally granted a Bridging Visa A. An applicant who did not hold a substantive visa but was not unlawful was generally granted a Bridging Visa C. Departmental policy explains that the Bridging Visa A or Bridging Visa C stops being in effect when the Subclass 820 is granted, but the person continues to hold it until the Subclass 801 application is finally determined. That is why it can come back into effect once the applicant has had their partner visa second stage refused. Our article on bridging visas in Australia explains the different types.

Where the applicant has travelled since the Subclass 820 was granted, or where a bridging visa has ceased for another reason, the position is less straightforward. The actual bridging visa held must be confirmed from the Department's records and the Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO) record before anyone relies on it. My Migration Lawyers obtains that history itself; clients are not expected to find old grant notices.

How long the bridging visa lasts

If no review application is made, the bridging visa ceases a short, fixed period after the Subclass 801 refusal. If a valid review application is made to the ART, the bridging visa generally continues while the review is on foot and for a short, fixed period after the Tribunal's decision. The exact cessation rule depends on when the bridging visa was granted and which bridging visa it is, so it must be worked out on the specific record. An applicant whose bridging visa ceases becomes unlawful, which brings serious consequences, including liability to detention.

Work rights and travel

Departmental policy states that Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 applicants who are eligible for an associated Bridging Visa A are granted it with nil conditions, which generally means no work restriction. A Bridging Visa C may carry different conditions. Our article on Bridging Visa A work rights, conditions and travel and our article on working while waiting for a Subclass 820 visa explain those conditions.

A Bridging Visa A does not allow the holder to travel and return. An applicant who has had their partner visa second stage refused and who needs to travel during a review must first obtain a Bridging Visa B, if eligible. Leaving Australia without one can end the bridging visa and leave the applicant unable to return to continue the review. Our guide to the Bridging Visa B explains the application.

If you were outside Australia when the Subclass 801 was refused

The Subclass 801 can be granted while the applicant is in or outside Australia, but a review application can only be made while the applicant is physically in the migration zone. Departmental policy states that an applicant who is outside Australia at the time of a Subclass 801 refusal must be told they need to be in Australia to make a valid review application. With the Subclass 820 ended by the refusal, returning may require another visa. Applicants who are overseas when the permanent stage is being assessed should therefore keep the Department informed and seek advice before any extended travel.

Can you appeal a Subclass 801 refusal to the ART?

Yes, a decision to refuse a Subclass 801 visa is generally reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal, unless the refusal was made under section 501 on character grounds. Departmental policy for the Subclass 801 identifies a refusal of the Subclass 801 as a reviewable decision under subsection 338(2) of the Migration Act 1958. The ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024, and older departmental documents still refer to the AAT. Our page on visa refusals and ART appeals explains how merits review works across visa types.

Who applies for review

For a Subclass 801 refusal, the review application must be made by the visa applicant, the person who was refused. This differs from some offshore partner refusals, where the sponsor applies. The applicant must be physically present in Australia when the review application is made, under section 347 of the Migration Act 1958. The sponsor can still give evidence and attend the hearing in support.

The review deadline is short and strictly applied

The time limit to apply for review when you have had your partner visa second stage refused is short and strictly applied, and it runs from notification of the decision. The ART cannot accept a late application for review of a Subclass 801 refusal. The refusal letter states the deadline. The review application is lodged with the ART, and the Tribunal's fee must be dealt with as the Tribunal requires. Our article on what to expect in an ART review after your visa is refused explains the process after lodgement.

Character refusals under section 501

A partner visa second stage refused under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 follows a different review path from an ordinary Subclass 801 refusal. Depending on who made the decision, it may be reviewable in a different part of the ART's jurisdiction, under different and often shorter time limits, or it may not be merits reviewable at all. A section 501 refusal also carries consequences for future visa applications. Anyone who receives a refusal letter that mentions section 501 should obtain advice immediately.

What the Tribunal reconsiders on review, and new evidence

The ART reconsiders the Subclass 801 application afresh and decides whether the criteria are met on the evidence before it at the time of its own decision. The Tribunal is not limited to the material the Department had. That is the single most important feature of review for anyone who has had their partner visa second stage refused: the applicant can put forward new evidence and new submissions.

Evidence about the relationship

Where the refusal turned on the relationship, the Tribunal assesses the same four aspects as the Department. New evidence may include updated joint financial records, evidence of the shared household, evidence of how the couple is recognised socially, and statements from the couple and from people who know them. The couple's own account of the relationship belongs in one relationship statement, and supporting statements from Australian citizens or permanent residents who know the couple are given on Form 888. Our guides to the partner visa relationship statement, Form 888 for a partner visa and Form 888 example answers explain what each should cover. Our relationship evidence checklist and partner visa document checklist list the categories of evidence.

Preparing the review case

Preparing a review after a partner visa second stage refused by the Department is not the same as repeating the original application. The case must answer the reasons for refusal, point by point, and fill the evidential gaps the decision maker identified. A partner visa second stage refused because the couple had lived apart for part of the period, for example, needs evidence explaining why they lived apart and how the relationship continued during that time. A partner visa second stage refused because of an allegation received by the Department needs a careful response to that allegation, supported by evidence where it exists.

Written submissions usually set out the criteria, the evidence on each criterion and the legal provisions that apply. Where the law offers more than one basis for grant, such as the standard relationship provision and the family violence provision, the submissions can address each basis in the alternative.

The hearing

The Tribunal usually invites the applicant to a hearing, where the applicant, the sponsor and witnesses can give oral evidence. The member will usually ask about the history of the relationship, the matters raised in the refusal and any inconsistencies in the record. Oral evidence is tested against the documents. Where the refusal relied on adverse information, such as an allegation received by the Department, the Tribunal must deal with that information according to the procedural fairness rules that apply to it.

Evidence on other criteria

Where a partner visa second stage refused by the Department turned on a public interest criterion, the evidence must be directed to that criterion. For character, that may mean court documents, police certificates and evidence of rehabilitation. For a non-response refusal, the review is the opportunity to provide everything the Department asked for and did not receive. Our article on partner visa refusal appeal options explains the general choices after any partner visa refusal.

What happens if the ART sets aside a second stage refusal?

If the ART sets aside the refusal, it usually remits the application to the Department for reconsideration, often with a direction that a particular criterion is met, and the Subclass 801 can then be granted even though the applicant no longer holds a Subclass 820. Subclause 801.221(8) exists for exactly this situation. Departmental policy explains that the subclause is needed because notification of the Subclass 801 refusal causes the Subclass 820 visa to cease, so the applicant can no longer meet the criterion of holding a Subclass 820.

The provision applies where the Tribunal remits the application and the Department then decides the applicant meets the other criteria, or where the Tribunal itself determines that the applicant meets the criteria apart from holding a Subclass 820. Family members whose Subclass 820 visas ceased on notification of the refusal can also be granted the Subclass 801 once the primary applicant is granted.

For an applicant who had their partner visa second stage refused, a remittal therefore restores the path to permanent residence without a new application. A remittal is not the final step. The Department still finalises the application, including any outstanding checks such as police certificates and health. The evidence must remain current, and any change in circumstances during that period must still be notified.

Relationship breakdown at the second stage: family violence, death of the sponsor and children

The Subclass 801 can still be granted after the relationship has ended if the applicant holds the Subclass 820 and one of the special provisions in clause 801.221 applies: the death of the sponsor, family violence committed by the sponsor, or a child of the relationship. These provisions are often the difference between a partner visa second stage refused for relationship breakdown and a grant.

Family violence committed by the sponsor

Subclause 801.221(6) applies where the relationship has ceased since the Subclass 820 was granted and the applicant, a dependent child of the applicant, or a dependent child of the sponsor or of both of them, has suffered family violence committed by the sponsoring partner. Departmental policy states that there is no requirement for a cause and effect link between the family violence and the end of the relationship. The applicant must have been the sponsor's spouse or de facto partner until the relationship ceased, and the family violence, or part of it, must have occurred while the relationship existed. The sponsor is taken to have committed family violence only in the ways set out in Division 1.5 and regulation 1.23 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Our page on the family violence provisions for partner visas explains the evidence required. An applicant who has had their partner visa second stage refused after leaving a violent relationship is often still able to rely on this provision on review, provided the evidence meets the requirements of Division 1.5.

Death of the sponsor

Subclause 801.221(5) applies where the sponsor has died since the Subclass 820 was granted. The applicant must show that they would have continued to be the sponsor's spouse or de facto partner if the sponsor had not died, and that they have developed close business, cultural or personal ties in Australia. The two-year wait does not apply. Where the sponsor died during processing and the applicant still had their partner visa second stage refused, the review usually turns on evidence of the relationship up to the sponsor's death and of the applicant's ties in Australia.

A child of the relationship

Subparagraph 801.221(6)(c)(ii) applies where the relationship has ceased and the applicant has custody, joint custody or access in relation to a child, or a parenting order under the Family Law Act 1975, and the sponsor also has custody, access, a parenting order or a maintenance obligation in relation to that child. The purpose of the provision is to allow the parent and child relationship to continue in Australia. A parent who has had their partner visa second stage refused without this provision being considered should raise it, with the court orders and evidence of the child's relationship with both parents, on review.

How the special provisions interact with a second stage refusal

The special provisions must be raised with evidence. A Department that is not told about family violence cannot apply the family violence provision. Where an applicant had their partner visa second stage refused on the basis that the relationship had ended, and the applicant has a basis under one of these provisions that was not put forward or not accepted, merits review is usually where that case is made. Each provision requires the applicant to hold a Subclass 820, or to fall within the review provision in subclause 801.221(8), so the timing and the review deadline matter.

What the Tribunal has looked at in relationship breakdown and time of decision cases

The Tribunal has remitted many partner visa matters where the issues were whether the relationship continued at the time of decision, or whether a special provision applied after the relationship ended. The decisions below are recorded in the Partner Visa ART Remittals database as matters remitted or set aside. They are listed against the Subclass 820, because the combined application is reviewed under that label, but the issues described are the same ones that arise when an applicant has had their partner visa second stage refused. Each matter turned on its own facts.

• In 1732593 (Migration) [2019] AATA 6139, the issues recorded were a genuine de facto relationship, the criteria at the time of decision, a continuing spousal relationship and financial aspects.
• In Vu (Migration) [2023] AATA 2881, the issues recorded were a genuine and continuing relationship, limited documentary evidence provided to the Department, extensive documentary evidence and submissions provided to the Tribunal, a valid marriage, and a relationship that ceased amicably.
• In Siyad (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2129, the issues recorded were a relationship that had ceased, a genuine and continuing relationship before family violence, coercive control, and joint utility and tenancy accounts.
• In Haikin (Migration) [2019] AATA 3241, the issues recorded were a withdrawn sponsorship, a relationship with the sponsor that had ceased, and a family violence victim.
• In Phan (Migration) [2020] AATA 513, the issues recorded were a relationship that had ceased, a withdrawn sponsorship, a child of the relationship and confirmed biological parentage.
• In 2120035 (Migration) [2024] ARTA 859, the issues recorded were that the sponsor was deceased and that the applicant was the de facto partner of the sponsor, who was an Australian citizen.

These matters show the kinds of questions the Tribunal reconsiders: whether a relationship continued, what evidence existed before it ended, whether the special provisions applied, and how much new evidence was before the Tribunal compared with the Department. They are not predictions about any other case.

Second stage refusal versus first stage refusal

A second stage refusal differs from a first stage refusal because the applicant already held a visa that the refusal brings to an end, and because the Department is assessing a relationship that it has already accepted once. The differences below explain why a partner visa second stage refused by the Department needs its own strategy.

• What is lost. At the first stage, the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 are usually refused together, and the applicant never held a partner visa. At the second stage, the applicant loses a Subclass 820 they have held, often for years, with its work and travel rights.
• What is assessed. At the first stage, the Department decides whether the relationship was genuine and continuing when the application was made and at decision. At the second stage, it decides whether the same relationship continues at the time of the Subclass 801 decision, or whether a special provision applies.
• The evidence period. A second stage assessment looks at the period since the Subclass 820 grant. Couples sometimes stop keeping evidence after the first grant, which leaves the second stage file thin.
• Character and health. New police certificates are required for the period since the Subclass 820 grant, so events after that grant can be decisive.
• The next application. After a partner visa second stage refused by the Department, section 48 generally prevents a new onshore partner visa, so review is usually more important than at the first stage.
• The bridging visa. After a second stage refusal, the bridging visa from the original application comes back into effect. After a first stage refusal, the same bridging visa simply continues.

Our articles on partner visa refusal appeal options and on Subclass 820 refusals deal with first stage refusals in detail.

Subclass 100 refused: the parallel offshore position

The offshore equivalent of a partner visa second stage refused onshore is a refusal of the permanent Subclass 100 visa after the applicant was granted the temporary Subclass 309 visa, and the law runs largely in parallel. The Subclass 100 requires the applicant to hold a Subclass 309, and notification of the refusal causes the Subclass 309 to cease. Subclause 100.221(4A) performs the same function as subclause 801.221(8) if the refusal is overturned on review. The special provisions for family violence, the death of the sponsor and a child of the relationship also exist at the Subclass 100 stage.

Review rights for a Subclass 100 refusal depend on where the applicant is. Departmental policy for the Subclass 100 states that an applicant who lodged the combined Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 application offshore and is refused while outside Australia has no review rights. An applicant refused while inside Australia has review rights, must apply personally and must be in Australia when applying. Departmental policy also states that a Subclass 309 holder in Australia who is refused the Subclass 100 is granted a Bridging Visa A to remain lawfully for a prescribed period. For a Subclass 309 holder living in Australia, being in Australia when the Subclass 100 is decided can therefore matter a great deal, because an offshore applicant with a partner visa second stage refused while overseas has no Tribunal review at all.

Can you lodge a new partner visa after having your partner visa second stage refused?

No, in most cases a person who has had their partner visa second stage refused cannot lodge a fresh onshore partner visa while in Australia. Once the Subclass 820 ceases and the applicant is on a bridging visa, section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 generally applies, because the applicant does not hold a substantive visa and has had a visa refused since last entering Australia. Departmental policy for the Subclass 801 explains that a person to whom section 48 applies cannot make a valid onshore partner visa application if they have had a partner visa refused since they last entered Australia. The policy describes this as preventing serial applications.

There is also a separate rule aimed at the period between the refusal and notification, which prevents a Subclass 820 holder from making a further partner visa application in Australia shortly after a partner visa refusal. The practical result is that, for most people, the realistic choices for anyone with a partner visa second stage refused are merits review, an offshore application, or another pathway. Our article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains section 48 in more detail.

An offshore application

Where the relationship continues but review is not the right path after a partner visa second stage refused by the Department, the couple may consider a new offshore application for the Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 visas, lodged while the applicant is outside Australia. Leaving Australia while holding a bridging visa is generally different from leaving after a period of unlawful stay, which can bring exclusion periods for future visas. The order of steps should be planned with advice. Our guide to the Subclass 309 offshore partner visa explains that pathway.

Judicial review and other options after the Tribunal

Judicial review is a later and narrower option: if the ART affirms the refusal, the applicant may seek judicial review in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, but only for a legal error by the Tribunal, not because they disagree with its view of the facts. A court that finds jurisdictional error generally sends the matter back to the Tribunal to decide again. It does not grant the visa. Time limits for judicial review are also strict. For most people who have had their partner visa second stage refused, the Tribunal review is where the case is won or lost, because judicial review cannot reweigh the evidence. Our page on judicial review of migration decisions explains the process.

Ministerial intervention

The Minister has personal, non-compellable powers to substitute a more favourable decision after certain Tribunal decisions, in the public interest. They are discretionary, the Minister is not required to consider a request, and the guidelines that govern them change from time to time. For an applicant who has had their partner visa second stage refused, ministerial intervention is not a substitute for merits review and should not be relied on in place of a review application.

Withdrawal and departure

Some applicants who have had their partner visa second stage refused decide not to seek review, usually because the relationship has ended and no special provision applies. In that case, the priority is to stay lawful until departure and to leave before the bridging visa ceases, so that future applications are not affected by unlawful stay. Advice at this point protects later options, including future visas based on a new relationship, skills or study.

How long the review takes and what to keep doing

The time the ART takes to decide a review varies and is published by the Tribunal, so applicants who have had their partner visa second stage refused should plan for a period of uncertainty rather than a quick answer. During that period, the applicant usually remains on the bridging visa linked to the original application, and the couple's circumstances continue to matter, because the Tribunal decides on the facts at the time of its own decision.

That has practical consequences. A couple who are still together after a partner visa second stage refused by the Department should keep building evidence of the shared finances, household, social life and commitment throughout the review. Any change, such as a new address, a new job, a new child, a separation or a reconciliation, should be considered carefully and disclosed as required. Where the relationship has ended and a special provision is relied on, evidence of that provision should be gathered and organised before the hearing, not on the morning of it. Our 820 visa requirements guide and our Subclass 820 partner visa guide explain the underlying requirements that continue to apply.

Choosing who acts when your partner visa second stage is refused

Having a partner visa second stage refused creates a legal matter with a short deadline, a bridging visa that must be identified correctly and evidence that must be directed to the criterion the Department relied on. Our article on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa, our guide to visa appeal lawyers and our guide to the partner visa lawyer vs doing it yourself question explain when legal help is worth considering. Our article on whether to use a migration agent or a lawyer for a partner visa sets out the practical differences.

Applicants who had a representative at the earlier stage and want a fresh view can read our guides to getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer, changing your immigration lawyer and hiring a lawyer after lodging your own application. Where the deadline is close, our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to have ready, and our article on booking an immigration lawyer consultation explains how a consultation works. Our article on Form 956 and 956A explains how a representative is appointed with the Department.

My Migration Lawyers acts for applicants throughout Australia, and every consultation is conducted by video. Couples can read about our partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Parramatta, Melbourne, Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart. Those comparing firms can read our guides to choosing a partner visa lawyer in Australia and, by city, in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

How My Migration Lawyers handles a partner visa second stage refused by the Department

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex partner visa matters and acts in many matters where an applicant has had their partner visa second stage refused. The firm is capable of handling Subclass 801 and Subclass 100 refusals based on relationship breakdown, doubts about whether the relationship continues, sponsor withdrawal, character and health issues, and non-response refusals, as well as matters where the family violence, death of sponsor or child provisions apply.

When a client comes to the firm with a partner visa second stage refused, the work generally includes:

• Reading the refusal decision and identifying each criterion relied on, the evidence the Department used and the date and method of notification.
• Confirming from VEVO and the Department's records whether the Subclass 820 has ceased, which bridging visa is now in effect, its conditions, and when it will cease, so the client stays lawful.
• Advising whether ART review is available, who must apply, and the deadline, and lodging the review application within time while the client is in Australia.
• Obtaining the Department's file where needed, so the review case responds to everything the decision maker had.
• Assessing whether the family violence, death of sponsor or child of the relationship provisions apply, and presenting the client's own account and evidence in the form the law requires.
• Preparing written submissions, the relationship statement, Form 888 supporting statements and updated evidence directed to the criteria in issue, and preparing the applicant, sponsor and witnesses for the hearing.
• Advising on a Bridging Visa B before any travel, on section 48 and on the alternatives if review is not the right course.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. Information about the firm's partner visa practice is on our partner visa lawyers page, information about how the firm prepares the combined onshore application is on our Subclass 820 visa page, and more about the firm is on our about page.

If you have had your partner visa second stage refused, or you expect the Subclass 801 to be refused, book a consultation online or call 1300 040 300.