Partner Visa Sham Relationship Allegations

A partner visa sham relationship allegation is the point at which the Department of Home Affairs tells a couple, directly or indirectly, that it doubts their relationship is genuine. It rarely arrives as a refusal. It usually arrives first as a request, an interview invitation or a natural justice letter. How a couple responds to a partner visa sham relationship concern at that stage often decides whether the Subclass 820 or Subclass 801 application is granted, refused, or sent on a much longer and harder path through review.

This article is about that stage before the decision. It explains how a partner visa sham relationship concern arises, the legal test the decision maker actually applies, the indicators case officers look at, and how to respond with the couple's own consistent account and evidence. It also explains the serious consequences of false or misleading information, how to prepare for an interview without coaching, and what happens if the application is refused anyway. If your application has already been refused, the partner visa refusals page explains the review pathway. For the full picture of the partner visa programme, see the complete guide to partner visas in Australia.

What Is a Partner Visa Sham Relationship Allegation?

A partner visa sham relationship allegation is a concern, held by the decision maker, that the relationship on which the partner visa depends is not genuine, or was entered into mainly to obtain a visa. It is not a formal charge and it is not a finding. It is a doubt that must be resolved before the Department can grant the visa.

The word "sham" does not appear in the partner visa criteria. Couples hear it from friends, from online forums and sometimes from the tone of a Department letter. Decision makers more often write that they are "not satisfied" that the relationship is genuine and continuing, or that they have "concerns about the bona fides" of the relationship. The departmental policy for the Subclass 820 visa refers to concerns about "the integrity or actuality of the claimed relationship". Whatever words are used, the effect is the same. A partner visa sham relationship concern means the decision maker does not yet accept the central fact on which the application rests.

There are broadly three forms the concern takes:

• A doubt about genuineness. The decision maker is not satisfied that the couple has a genuine and continuing relationship and a mutual commitment to a shared life. This is the classic partner visa sham relationship concern.
• A doubt about honesty. The decision maker believes information given in this application, or in an earlier application, is false or misleading. This engages public interest criterion 4020, the integrity criterion, and is often raised alongside a genuineness concern.
• A doubt about the facts. The decision maker has information, sometimes from a third party, that contradicts the couple's account, for example about where they live or whether one partner is still in another relationship.

Each of these needs a different response. Treating every partner visa sham relationship concern as the same problem, and answering it with a pile of photographs, is one of the most common reasons couples who are genuinely together still end up refused. The reasons partner visas get refused show how often the evidence, not the relationship, is the real weakness.

Is "Sham Relationship" a Legal Test for a Partner Visa?

No. There is no "sham relationship" test in the Migration Act 1958 or the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision maker applies the statutory definition of a spouse in section 5F of the Act, or the definition of a de facto partner in section 5CB, together with the matters the Regulations require to be considered.

For a married couple, section 5F of the Act provides that two people are in a married relationship if all of the following apply:

• they are married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act (paragraph 5F(2)(a));
• they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others (paragraph 5F(2)(b));
• the relationship between them is genuine and continuing (paragraph 5F(2)(c)); and
• they live together, or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis (paragraph 5F(2)(d)).

A valid marriage certificate satisfies only the first of those requirements. The departmental policy on spouse relationships says each requirement must be assessed separately. That is why a married couple can still face a partner visa sham relationship concern. Being married is not the same as being in a genuine and continuing marital relationship for migration purposes. The Subclass 820 partner visa guide explains how these requirements fit into the onshore criteria, and the shorter Subclass 820 visa overview summarises the visa itself.

Couples who are not married are assessed under section 5CB as de facto partners, which uses a parallel test of mutual commitment, a genuine and continuing relationship and living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. The de facto partner visa guide covers that category. The rest of this article focuses on the partner visa sham relationship assessment as it applies to both.

Regulation 1.15A and the four aspects of the relationship

For a Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309 or Subclass 100 application, subregulation 1.15A(2) requires the decision maker to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including the four matters in subregulation 1.15A(3):

• The financial aspects of the relationship, such as joint ownership of assets, joint liabilities, pooling of financial resources, legal obligations owed by one partner to the other, and the basis on which day to day household expenses are shared.
• The nature of the household, such as shared care of children, the living arrangements and the sharing of housework.
• The social aspects of the relationship, such as whether the couple represent themselves to others as a couple, the opinion of friends and family, and the way they plan and undertake joint social activities.
• The nature of the commitment, such as the duration of the relationship, how long the couple have lived together, the companionship and emotional support they give each other, and whether they see the relationship as long term.

The departmental policy is clear that this is not a scorecard. The decision maker must not simply count how many of the four aspects are satisfied. They must weigh all the circumstances and decide, on balance, whether the requirements of section 5F are met. A partner visa sham relationship concern can therefore arise even when a couple has strong evidence in one aspect, if the overall picture does not hold together.

The policy also says the nature of the commitment can be assessed by looking at the partners' knowledge of each other's personal circumstances, including background and family situation, and that this "could be established at interview". That single sentence explains why so many partner visa sham relationship concerns are tested by interviewing the couple. The four aspects are explained in depth in the guide to evidence of a genuine relationship for a partner visa.

Time of application and time of decision

The relationship must be genuine and continuing when the application is made and again when the decision is made. For the combined onshore application, the departmental policy for the Subclass 801 says the assessment at the permanent stage is a fresh assessment, based on the evidence at the time of decision, and may require further investigation such as interviewing both partners. A partner visa sham relationship concern can therefore surface at the Subclass 820 stage, or for the first time when the Subclass 801 is assessed. The Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 comparison explains the two stages, and the article on how long the onshore partner visa takes explains why the second assessment can come years after lodgement.

How Does the Department Raise a Partner Visa Sham Relationship Concern?

The Department raises a partner visa sham relationship concern through its ordinary processing powers: a request for more information under section 56 of the Act, an interview with one or both partners, checks of documents and departmental records, and a natural justice letter under section 57 inviting comment on adverse information. Some cases are also referred to an internal integrity team.

The departmental policy for the Subclass 820 says that where integrity concerns arise, many cases "can be resolved by due diligence in normal processes", for example through investigative interviews with the applicant and other relevant persons, checks of documents, departmental databases and other evidence. Where that is not enough, the case may be referred to an internal integrity team for more information about the applicant's or the sponsor's circumstances. Couples do not always know which of these steps has been taken. They see only the letters that result.

Section 56 requests for more information

Section 56 of the Act allows the decision maker to invite the applicant to give additional information. In a partner visa sham relationship case, a section 56 request often asks for more evidence of living together, for updated financial records, for a fresh relationship statement, or for further Form 888 statements from people who know the couple. A section 56 request is not an accusation. But the choice of what the Department asks for usually tells you exactly which aspect of the relationship it is worried about.

Treat a section 56 request as the earliest warning of a partner visa sham relationship concern. Answer every item, within the time stated, and do not send material that contradicts what is already on the file without explaining the difference. The section 56 request guide explains how these requests work and what happens if the deadline is missed.

Interviews with each partner

The Department may invite the applicant, the sponsoring partner, or both, to an interview. Couples should expect that each partner may be interviewed separately, and that the same questions may be asked of both so that the answers can be compared. Interviews can be in person or by telephone or video. The purpose, in a partner visa sham relationship case, is to test the couple's knowledge of each other, the history of the relationship and the daily reality of their life together.

Interview answers are recorded and become part of the evidence. A partner visa sham relationship concern that began as a gap in the documents can become a much more serious problem if the interview answers then conflict with each other or with the application. One of the Tribunal decisions discussed later turned in part on incorrect information given in the visa application and in Department interviews.

Home visits and checks of records

Departmental policy refers to information obtained during visa assessment, including information obtained following a site visit. A home visit is not routine in every case, but where a couple claims to live at a particular address, the Department may check that claim. It may also check records already held by government, such as earlier visa applications, movement records, and declarations made to other agencies.

This is why consistency across every document matters. A partner visa sham relationship concern is often not created by a visit at all, but by a records check that shows a different address, a different relationship status or a different history from the one in the current application.

Section 57 natural justice letters

A section 57 letter is the formal step that usually comes before a refusal. Section 57 requires the decision maker, for an application made in Australia, to give the applicant particulars of relevant information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusing the visa, to ensure as far as reasonably practicable that the applicant understands why it is relevant, and to invite comment on it.

In a partner visa sham relationship case, the section 57 letter is the most important document the couple will receive before a decision. It sets out the adverse information the decision maker is relying on. It is the couple's chance to correct it, explain it and answer it with evidence. A weak or late response to a section 57 letter is, in practice, one of the most direct routes from a partner visa sham relationship concern to a refusal. The partner visa section 57 natural justice letter guide explains the letter in detail.

Not every concern must be put to you under section 57. The obligation applies to "relevant information" as the Act defines it, and some categories of information are excluded, including information the applicant gave for the purpose of the application. A decision maker may therefore rely on gaps or inconsistencies in what the couple themselves supplied without putting each one in a letter. This is one more reason why the application should be internally consistent from the beginning.

Third-party information

Some partner visa sham relationship concerns begin with information from someone outside the relationship. This can be a former partner, a family member, an acquaintance, or a person with a grievance. The Department receives allegations of this kind and may act on them by making further enquiries.

An allegation from a third party is not proof. But if the decision maker intends to rely on it, the substance of the information should be put to the applicant for comment. The response should deal with the substance calmly and factually, with evidence, rather than attacking the person believed to be the source. Where the relationship has ended because of family violence and the other partner is now making allegations, the family violence provisions may be relevant, and departmental policy itself warns decision makers to treat information from an alleged perpetrator with care.

What Triggers a Partner Visa Sham Relationship Concern?

Most partner visa sham relationship concerns are triggered by inconsistency rather than by any single fact. The decision maker compares what the couple says now with what each partner has said before, with what the documents show, and with what other people say. Where those sources do not line up, doubt follows.

The following triggers appear again and again in partner visa sham relationship matters. None of them proves that a relationship is not genuine. Each of them needs to be identified and addressed before the decision maker draws its own conclusion.

Inconsistencies between the partners' accounts

The most common trigger is a difference between the two partners' versions of the same events. How and where they met. When they started living together. Who proposed, and when. How they share rent. Where they spent last Christmas. Small differences are normal in any genuine relationship, because two people remember the same events differently. Large or repeated differences, especially on basic facts, are what turn a gap in evidence into a partner visa sham relationship concern.

The relationship statement and each partner's answers in the application forms should tell one story. The partner visa relationship statement guide explains how a single, honest relationship statement is prepared so that both partners recognise it as their own account.

Inconsistencies with earlier visa applications

Every earlier visa application is on the Department's records. A visitor visa application that declared the applicant "single" at a time when the relationship had already begun. A student visa application that listed a different address. A previous partner visa application with a different sponsor. An earlier Subclass 300 application that was never disclosed. Each of these can become the centre of a partner visa sham relationship concern, and each can also raise a separate question about false or misleading information under public interest criterion 4020.

Because the Department holds these records, the honest approach is to identify the earlier applications before lodging and to address any differences openly. My Migration Lawyers obtains the client's visa history from the Department and from VEVO itself, rather than asking clients to find old forms they no longer have. Couples coming from a visitor visa should also read about the tourist visa to partner visa pathway, because the declarations made in that earlier visitor visa application are frequently compared with the partner application.

Previous relationships that have not clearly ended

Section 5F requires a mutual commitment to a shared life "to the exclusion of all others". If either partner is still married to someone else, or was recently in another relationship, the decision maker will want to know whether that earlier relationship has genuinely and permanently ended. Departmental policy says that a separated couple can still be living at the same address, but they need to show they have organised their lives separately and that the links characteristic of a marital relationship have ceased.

A partner visa sham relationship concern commonly arises where the earlier relationship and the current relationship overlap in time, where an earlier partner is still listed on documents, or where a previous partner relationship was not disclosed at all. Where there are previous partner applications or sponsorships in the history, the partner visa sponsorship limitations page explains the separate rules that may apply.

The speed and circumstances of the relationship

A relationship that moves quickly from first meeting to marriage, particularly where the applicant's visa was about to expire, is often examined more closely. So is a relationship that began through an introduction agency, a marriage broker or family arrangement. Speed and circumstances are not, by themselves, a reason to refuse. Many genuine relationships move quickly, and many cultures treat a short engagement as normal.

Departmental policy states that the fact a marriage was arranged by relatives, friends or a marriage broker does not by itself affect recognition of the marriage, but that delegates are expected to take particular care in assessing mutual commitment and whether the relationship is genuine and continuing. The response to this kind of partner visa sham relationship concern is context: how the couple came to know each other, what each partner knew about the other before marrying, and how the relationship has developed since.

Living arrangements that do not match the claims

A couple who say they live together should be able to show it. Leases, utility accounts, bank statements and correspondence should show the same address. Where the documents show different addresses, or where the couple lives with other people, the reasons should be explained. One of the Tribunal decisions discussed later involved shared accommodation with other co-tenants, and another involved incorrect residential information in the visa application. Both are examples of how living arrangements can drive a partner visa sham relationship concern.

Periods of living apart for work, study, family obligations or visa reasons are common. Departmental policy says that where a couple claims a separation is temporary, the decision maker considers the reasons for it and whether they are consistent with a mutual commitment. The partner visa document checklist and the Subclass 820 evidence checklist explain the documents that show how a household actually operates.

Limited knowledge of each other

If one partner cannot name the other's parents, does not know what the other does for work, or gives a different account of daily routines, a decision maker will draw an inference. Knowledge of each other's lives is one of the ways the nature of the commitment is assessed. A partner visa sham relationship concern based on limited knowledge is best answered by explaining any language or cultural barriers honestly and by evidence of how the couple actually spend their time, not by memorising facts before an interview.

Social and cultural context

The social aspects of the relationship include whether the couple present themselves to others as a couple. Departmental policy also tells decision makers to take into account the extent to which the laws or traditions of a home country may discourage a couple from openly acknowledging their relationship. This is important for same-sex couples and for couples whose families do not yet accept the relationship. The LGBTI partner visa page explains how these relationships are evidenced. Silence about a relationship in one community is not, by itself, a reason for a partner visa sham relationship finding, but the reasons for it should be explained.

Partner Visa Sham Relationship Concerns and PIC 4020: False or Misleading Information

Public interest criterion 4020 is the integrity criterion, and it applies to the Subclass 820 primary applicant under clause 820.226 of Schedule 2, and again at the Subclass 801 stage. It requires that there is no evidence the applicant has given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the current application, or in relation to a visa held in the 12 months before the application was made.

PIC 4020 is often raised alongside a partner visa sham relationship concern. A couple may face two separate findings: that the relationship is not genuine, and that information in the application was false or misleading. The second finding has consequences that reach beyond this application.

What counts as false or misleading information

PIC 4020(5) defines information that is false or misleading in a material particular as information that is false or misleading at the time it is given and relevant to any of the criteria the decision maker may consider, whether or not the decision is made because of that information. Departmental policy describes false information as information contrary to fact, and misleading information as information that creates a false impression even if it contains some truth. It gives omission of facts as an example, including a partner applicant failing to tell the Department about a material change in circumstances.

In partner visa sham relationship matters, the information most often in question is relationship status in earlier applications, the date the couple started living together, addresses, previous relationships, and whether a previous partner visa or Subclass 300 application was made. The Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa page explains that pathway, because an undisclosed Subclass 300 history is one of the specific issues reported in the Tribunal decisions below.

Purposeful falsity and innocent mistakes

PIC 4020 is not breached by every error. Departmental policy, following the Full Federal Court decision in Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42, says the information must have the quality of "purposeful falsity", which the policy describes in plain English as being intentionally untrue or incorrect. If the applicant can explain an innocent mistake and the decision maker accepts it, PIC 4020 can be satisfied.

The policy gives examples. A typographical error in an address or date of birth that is not repeated. A "no" answer in one part of a form where the true information was disclosed elsewhere in the same application. Following a custom of the country of origin without any intent to deceive. The onus is on the applicant to explain why the information was given and to show that it was a genuine mistake. That explanation must be true. A partner visa sham relationship response that offers a convenient but false explanation for an earlier false statement makes the position worse, not better.

Non-grant periods and the waiver

If a visa is refused because PIC 4020 is not satisfied on the ground of bogus documents or false or misleading information, PIC 4020(2) generally prevents the grant of a later visa, for which PIC 4020 is a criterion, for a period of three years. Where the refusal is based on identity, the period is ten years. These non-grant periods apply to the applicant and to members of the family unit, subject to exceptions for applicants who were under 18 when the refused application was made.

PIC 4020(4) allows the decision maker to waive the false information and non-grant period requirements if satisfied that there are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, that justify the grant of the visa. In partner matters, the interests of an Australian citizen partner or child are often central to that waiver. There is no waiver for the identity requirements. The departmental policy also notes that the interests of the applicant themselves are not relevant to the waiver.

Information given to the Tribunal is also covered

PIC 4020 covers information given to the Minister, an officer, and also the ART during review. A partner visa sham relationship matter that goes to review does not leave the integrity criterion behind. False evidence given at a Tribunal hearing can create a fresh PIC 4020 problem. Departmental policy also says that where an applicant withdraws an application in response to a PIC 4020 natural justice letter, or does not respond, the suspected fraud is recorded in departmental systems so that later applications receive appropriate scrutiny. Withdrawal does not make a partner visa sham relationship concern disappear. If a visa has already been granted, information later found to be incorrect can also raise cancellation issues, which the visa cancellations page explains.

How to Respond to a Partner Visa Sham Relationship Allegation

The right response to a partner visa sham relationship allegation is the couple's own consistent, truthful account, supported by evidence across all four aspects of the relationship, with every inconsistency identified and explained honestly, and lodged within the time allowed. Volume of paper is not the answer. Precision is.

The following steps reflect how a well run response is prepared. Each matter is different, and the order of steps may change, but none should be skipped.

Step 1: Identify exactly what the concern is

Read the section 56 request or section 57 letter closely. Identify each piece of adverse information and each criterion it relates to. A partner visa sham relationship letter may raise a genuineness concern, a PIC 4020 concern, or both. A letter that refers to an earlier visitor visa declaration is raising a different issue from a letter that refers to a lack of joint finances. Every response should be organised around the decision maker's actual concerns, in the decision maker's order.

Step 2: Diarise the deadline and act early

The response period is stated in the letter. It is usually short. Requests for more time are not always granted and cannot be assumed. A partner visa sham relationship response prepared in the last two days, without time to obtain records or Form 888 statements, is rarely the strongest response the couple could have made. If you have only just received the letter and you are unsure what it means, the urgent advice guide explains what to gather before speaking to a lawyer.

Step 3: Establish the couple's own consistent account

Before any evidence is gathered, each partner should set out their own recollection of the key facts, separately. When they met. When the relationship became committed. When they moved in. Major events since. Then the two accounts are compared. Where they differ, the couple works out together what actually happened, using documents, messages and photographs to fix dates. The result is one consistent account that both partners genuinely recognise as true.

This is not the same as agreeing a script. The aim is accuracy, not uniformity. Two people who live together will naturally describe the same events in different words. The partner visa sham relationship response should reflect that, while ensuring the facts themselves are consistent.

Step 4: Gather evidence across all four aspects

The evidence should cover the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment, and it should cover the whole period of the relationship, not only the weeks before lodgement. Departmental policy says, for example, that joint bank accounts operated with reasonable frequency and for a reasonable period carry more weight than recently opened accounts or accounts with few transactions.

Useful evidence often includes:

• bank statements showing shared expenses, transfers and joint accounts over time;
• leases, mortgage documents and utility accounts showing a shared address;
• correspondence addressed to both partners at the same address;
• evidence of shared responsibility for children and for the household;
• evidence that the relationship has been declared to government bodies and institutions;
• evidence of joint travel, joint social activities and time with each other's families;
• wills, superannuation nominations, insurance and other evidence of long-term provision for each other.

The guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explains how these documents are organised so that a decision maker can follow them.

Step 5: Explain every inconsistency honestly

Where the decision maker has identified an inconsistency, the response must deal with it directly. If an earlier visitor visa application stated the applicant was single, explain what the relationship status actually was at that date and why the answer was given. If the addresses differ, explain why. If an interview answer was wrong, say so, and say what the correct answer is.

Do not ignore an inconsistency in the hope the decision maker will overlook it. Do not invent an explanation. If the true explanation is that an earlier statement was wrong, the response should say so plainly. In a partner visa sham relationship matter, a candid explanation of a past error is far safer than a new story that the decision maker can test against the records it already holds.

Step 6: Form 888 statements from people who know the couple

Form 888 statements are written statements, made on the Department's form, by Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or eligible New Zealand citizens who know the couple. They support the social aspects of the relationship. In a partner visa sham relationship response, they are most useful when they are specific: how long the witness has known the couple, how often they see them, what they have observed of the relationship, and any events they attended together.

Each Form 888 statement must be the witness's own account in their own words. A set of statements that use the same phrases, or that describe events the witness could not have seen, will undermine the response. The Form 888 partner visa guide explains who can complete the form, and the Form 888 examples show the level of detail decision makers find useful.

Step 7: Never fabricate anything

Never create, alter or backdate a document. Never ask a friend to sign a Form 888 statement about events they did not witness. Never open a joint account or move a name onto a lease purely to produce evidence, and then present it as though it reflected a longer history. A fabricated document turns a partner visa sham relationship concern into a PIC 4020 refusal with a non-grant period, and it can have consequences well beyond the visa.

The firm presents the couple's own account and evidence in the form the law requires. It does not construct claims. Where the honest evidence is limited, the response says so and explains why, and that is a stronger position than any invented document.

Step 8: Keep the Department informed

Section 104 of the Act requires an applicant to notify the Department of changes in circumstances that make an answer in the application incorrect. If the couple has moved, if circumstances have changed, or if an earlier answer was wrong, the Department should be told, usually through Form 1022. If personal particulars are requested, the Form 80 guide explains that form. Failing to update the Department is itself a common source of partner visa sham relationship concerns.

How to Prepare for a Partner Visa Interview Without Coaching

The right way to prepare for a partner visa interview is to understand the process, review your own application so you know what you said, and make sure your account is accurate. The wrong way is to memorise answers or rehearse a shared script. Decision makers are trained to recognise rehearsed answers, and a rehearsed answer that turns out to be wrong is far more damaging in a partner visa sham relationship case than an honest "I am not sure".

Preparation that is legitimate and useful includes:

• Reading your own application. Each partner should re-read the application forms, the relationship statement and any earlier responses, so they know what has been said and can correct anything that is wrong before the interview, not during it.
• Correcting errors in advance. If either partner finds an error in the application, the Department should be told before the interview, in writing, with an explanation.
• Understanding the format. Each partner may be interviewed alone. Questions may cover how you met, your daily routine, your home, your finances, your families, significant events and your plans for the future.
• Arranging an interpreter if needed. If either partner is not confident in English, ask for an interpreter. Misunderstanding a question is a common cause of inconsistent answers.
• Bringing documents if invited to. Bring only what the invitation asks for, and only genuine documents.

During the interview, answer the question asked. If you do not know or do not remember, say so. Do not guess at a date to sound certain. If you realise an earlier answer was wrong, correct it at once. A short, honest correction is far less harmful in a partner visa sham relationship assessment than a wrong answer left on the record.

A lawyer can explain the process and review the file with you, but a lawyer must not tell you what to say about facts that are yours to state. The interview tests your relationship, not your preparation. The Subclass 820 visa guide explains where the interview fits in onshore processing, and the Subclass 820 processing time article explains how long each stage can take.

What Tribunal Decisions Show About Sham Relationship Concerns

Tribunal decisions show that partner visa sham relationship concerns are usually decided on the detail: what the couple said in earlier applications, what they said at interview, where they actually lived, and whether the evidence across the four aspects of the relationship holds together. They also show that a refusal is not always the end of the matter.

In each of the following decisions, the Tribunal set aside the Department's 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:

• Yeung (Migration) [2020] AATA 4137: a Subclass 820 matter remitted by the Federal Circuit Court, concerning whether the applicant was a de facto partner or spouse, incorrect information in the visa application and in Department interviews, and a meeting through an introduction agency that was not disclosed.
• Truong (Migration) [2024] AATA 680: a Subclass 820 matter concerning false or misleading information in a material particular, a previous visitor visa application, marital status, and a couple who were separated but still living together.
• 2107016 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2250: a Subclass 820 matter in which the parties were found to have provided false or misleading information, having failed to disclose details of a previous relationship and a Subclass 300 visa application.
• Le (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2423: a Subclass 820 matter concerning a genuine and continuing relationship, incorrect residential information in the visa application, a joint bank account and shared education expenses.
• Wang (Migration) [2024] ARTA 822: a Subclass 820 matter concerning a genuine and continuing relationship where the couple validly married two months after meeting, and the financial, household and social aspects of the relationship, the nature of the commitment and the couple's future plans.
• Salise (Migration) [2024] AATA 1932: a Subclass 820 matter concerning a genuine and continuing relationship, the circumstances of meeting and the progress of the relationship, previous visits on tourist visas, and a valid marriage.

The decisions with an AATA citation were made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before the ART replaced it on 14 October 2024. The decisions with an ARTA citation were made by the ART. These decisions do not establish that any particular explanation will be accepted in a later case, and each turned on its own evidence. What they show is that the issues behind a partner visa sham relationship concern, such as undisclosed history, inconsistent residential information, a fast marriage or a history of visitor visas, are matters the Tribunal examines closely. They also show why the honest, consistent account matters at every stage, including the earliest one.

What Happens If the Partner Visa Is Refused?

If the Department refuses the application after a partner visa sham relationship concern, the refusal letter will state whether merits review is available, the deadline for applying, and the Tribunal to apply to. For an onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 refusal, review is usually available at the ART. The deadline is short, it runs from notification of the decision, it is strictly applied, and the Tribunal cannot extend it.

Under subsection 347(3) of the Act, an applicant seeking review of a Subclass 820 refusal must be physically in Australia when the review application is made. The bridging visa held during processing generally continues while a valid review application is pending, and the bridging visas guide explains how that works. A fee is payable to the Tribunal, and the refusal letter and the Tribunal will explain it.

The Tribunal reconsiders the matter afresh. It can affirm the refusal, set it aside and substitute a new decision, or set it aside and remit the matter to the Department. It considers the evidence before it at the time of its decision, which means a partner visa sham relationship refusal can be answered at review with better evidence and a properly explained account. But anything said in the Department process remains on the file, and the Tribunal will compare it. The ART review guide explains what the process involves, and the partner visa refusal appeal options explain the choices once a refusal arrives.

If the Tribunal affirms the refusal, judicial review may be available only where the Tribunal made a legal error. That is a narrow ground, not a second hearing on the facts. The judicial review page explains when it may apply. Where a couple has separated after a refusal, the Subclass 820 relationship breakdown article explains the options, and the partner visa after visa refusal article explains how an earlier refusal affects a later application. The visa refusals service page and the Subclass 820 refusal reasons article cover refusals more generally.

Mistakes That Make a Partner Visa Sham Relationship Allegation Worse

The mistakes that most often turn a partner visa sham relationship concern into a refusal are predictable, and almost all of them are made in the first days after the letter arrives:

• Ignoring a section 56 request because it does not look serious. It is often the first sign of a partner visa sham relationship concern.
• Sending a large volume of unexplained documents without addressing the specific concern raised.
• Answering an inconsistency with a new inconsistency, for example a fresh date that conflicts with the original application and with the earlier visa records.
• Coordinating or scripting answers before an interview, which tends to produce identical wording and wrong details at the same time.
• Collecting Form 888 statements that use the same template wording, or that describe events the witness did not see.
• Creating documents after the event, such as a backdated lease or a joint account opened only to produce evidence.
• Withdrawing the application in a panic. Departmental policy records a withdrawal after a PIC 4020 letter in departmental systems, and withdrawal also starts the cessation of the bridging visa.
• Missing the response deadline, which allows the decision maker to decide on the information already held.
• Attacking a former partner or third party instead of answering the substance of the information with evidence.

If your application was lodged without a lawyer and you now face a partner visa sham relationship concern, the article on hiring a lawyer after lodgement explains how a lawyer can step in, and the second opinion guide explains what a review of an existing file involves. Where a representative already acts and you are considering a change, the article on changing immigration lawyer explains the process, and the Form 956 and 956A article explains how an appointment is notified. For what a lawyer does on a partner matter, see the role of an immigration lawyer in a partner visa and the partner visa lawyer guide. For a neutral comparison of representation options, see migration agent or lawyer for a partner visa and partner visa lawyer or DIY.

How My Migration Lawyers Helps With Partner Visa Sham Relationship Allegations

My Migration Lawyers acts for couples at the point where the Department has raised a partner visa sham relationship concern but has not yet decided the application. This is the stage where the outcome can still be changed most directly, and it is where the firm concentrates its work on these matters.

In a partner visa sham relationship matter, the firm's work follows these steps:

• Read the Department's correspondence and the full file. The firm identifies every concern raised in the section 56 request, interview invitation or section 57 letter, and each criterion it relates to, including whether PIC 4020 is engaged.
• Obtain the visa history. The firm obtains the client's immigration history itself, including earlier visa applications, through VEVO and Department records, so that earlier declarations can be compared with the current application before the decision maker does.
• Take each partner's account separately. Each partner gives their own account of the relationship. Differences are identified and resolved by reference to documents and records, so that the response reflects one accurate account that both partners recognise as true.
• Map the evidence to the four aspects. The firm organises the couple's genuine evidence across the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment, and identifies gaps that need explanation rather than invention.
• Explain inconsistencies honestly. Where earlier information was wrong, the firm helps the client set out the true position and the reasons for the error, and addresses purposeful falsity and the PIC 4020(4) waiver where relevant.
• Review Form 888 statements and the relationship statement. Statements are the clients' and witnesses' own evidence, reviewed and corrected by them. The firm checks that they are specific, accurate and consistent with the documents.
• Explain the interview process. Where an interview is scheduled, the firm explains the process and reviews the file with each partner, without scripting any answer.
• Lodge a structured response on time. The response addresses each concern in the decision maker's order, with the evidence and submissions that answer it, before the deadline.
• Act on review if needed. If the application is refused, the firm identifies the review deadline immediately and, where appropriate, lodges and runs the ART review.

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex partner matters and acts in many partner visa sham relationship matters of exactly this kind, including couples with earlier visa applications that conflict with the current application, couples with previous relationships or earlier partner applications in their history, couples who married quickly, and couples facing section 57 letters raising PIC 4020. The firm is capable of handling these matters at both the Department and Tribunal stages. Matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. No outcome can be promised in any migration matter. What can be controlled is the accuracy, consistency and completeness of the response.

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 Subclass 820 visa service, or read what to expect from a consultation.

If you have received a section 56 request, an interview invitation or a section 57 letter that raises a partner visa sham relationship concern, get advice before you respond, not after.

Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your partner visa sham relationship response assessed. You can also call 1300 040 300.