Partner Visa Spent Convictions: What to Disclose

What are partner visa spent convictions?

Partner visa spent convictions are old criminal convictions that are treated as "spent" under Australian law, usually because a set waiting period has passed without further offending, but which still must be declared in a partner visa application. The phrase "partner visa spent convictions" describes a real and common problem: many applicants and sponsors believe that a conviction that no longer appears on an ordinary police check has disappeared for every purpose. For a partner visa in Australia, it has not.

The short answer is that partner visa spent convictions are not hidden from the Department of Home Affairs. The Commonwealth spent convictions scheme contains an express exclusion for decisions made under the Migration Act 1958, and the Department's own character question asks about convictions in any country, including any conviction which is now removed from official records. A person applying for a Subclass 820 visa, a Subclass 309 visa or a Subclass 300 visa must therefore answer that question honestly.

This guide explains why that is so, how partner visa spent convictions are actually assessed, why the real danger is usually non-disclosure rather than the conviction, and how to disclose an old conviction with context and supporting documents. It is written for applicants and sponsors who want a calm, accurate answer before they lodge.

Who this guide is for

This guide is for people with an old conviction who are about to apply for a partner visa, people who have already applied and are unsure whether they answered correctly, and sponsors who are worried about their own record. The general requirements for the onshore stream are covered in the guide to the Subclass 820 visa explained and the complete Subclass 820 partner visa guide. The 820 visa requirements guide covers documents more broadly. This article deals only with partner visa spent convictions and the disclosure question.

What this guide does not cover in depth

Some closely related issues are covered elsewhere on this site. This article does not set out every element of the character test, and it does not deal in detail with convictions recorded overseas or with a person who has already lodged and now realises a conviction was left out. It focuses on one question: what the law says about partner visa spent convictions, and what an applicant or sponsor should disclose.

Do you have to declare partner visa spent convictions?

Yes. Partner visa spent convictions must be declared, because the character question in the Department's forms asks whether a person has ever been convicted of an offence in any country, including any conviction which is now removed from official records. A spent conviction is still a conviction for that purpose. The word "spent" changes what other people may ask about and disclose in ordinary life. It does not change the answer to a question the Department is lawfully entitled to ask.

What the forms actually ask

The character section of Form 80, which partner visa applicants are commonly asked to complete, asks whether the applicant has ever "been convicted of an offence in any country (including any conviction which is now removed from official records)". The same wording appears in the character questions in other Department forms. If the answer is yes, the form asks for details, including the date of the charge, the outcome and any penalty imposed, and asks the applicant to attach court documents such as sentencing remarks.

The form also asks separate questions about charges currently awaiting legal action, family or domestic violence offences, and domestic or family violence orders. Each question must be read on its own terms. A person with partner visa spent convictions should read every character question carefully, because an old matter may be relevant to more than one of them.

Why "spent" does not mean "nothing to declare"

The most common error about partner visa spent convictions is the belief that a spent conviction can be answered "No". That belief usually comes from a genuine experience: the person applied for a job, obtained a standard police check, and the old conviction did not appear. The person then assumes the conviction is gone for all purposes.

The Department's question is drafted to defeat exactly that assumption. The words "including any conviction which is now removed from official records" make it clear that the Department wants to know about convictions that no longer appear on a standard record. An applicant who answers "No" because a conviction is spent has given an incorrect answer, even if the applicant honestly misunderstood the law. The consequences of that are explained later in this guide, and they are usually much more serious than the old conviction itself.

Applicants and sponsors are both affected

Partner visa spent convictions affect two people. The applicant must answer the character questions in the visa application and satisfy the public interest criteria for character. The sponsor may also be asked for police checks, and the sponsor's own convictions can affect whether the sponsorship is approved, as explained later in this guide. Both people should therefore understand the disclosure rules before anything is lodged. The partner visa document checklist shows where character documents sit within the wider application.

How does the Commonwealth spent convictions scheme work?

The Commonwealth spent convictions scheme is set out in Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914, and in general terms it allows a person whose conviction is spent to not disclose it, but it contains an express exclusion for decisions under the Migration Act 1958. Understanding both halves of that sentence is the key to understanding partner visa spent convictions.

When a conviction becomes spent

Under section 85ZM of the Crimes Act 1914, a conviction is spent if the person has been granted a pardon for a reason other than that the person was wrongly convicted, or if the person was not sentenced to imprisonment for the offence, or was not sentenced to imprisonment for more than 30 months, and the waiting period for the offence has ended.

Section 85ZL defines the waiting period. For a person who was dealt with as a minor, it is 5 years beginning on the day of the conviction. For any other person, it is 10 years beginning on the day of the conviction. Other conditions in the scheme can also affect whether a particular conviction is spent, so the exact status of an old conviction should be checked against the court record rather than assumed.

What the scheme normally allows

Where a conviction is spent and no exclusion applies, the scheme gives the person significant protection. In general, the person is not required to disclose the spent conviction to other people or to authorities, and other people are restricted in disclosing it or taking it into account. This is why many people with partner visa spent convictions have lived for years without being asked about an old offence, and why the migration rules come as a surprise.

The migration exclusion in section 85ZZH(d)

The protection does not reach migration decisions. Section 85ZZH of the Crimes Act 1914 lists persons and bodies to whom the non-disclosure rules in Division 3 of Part VIIC do not apply. Paragraph 85ZZH(d) refers to "a person who makes a decision under the Migration Act 1958, the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, or the Immigration Act 1980 of the Territory of Norfolk Island, for the purpose of making that decision".

A delegate of the Minister deciding a partner visa is a person making a decision under the Migration Act 1958. The Administrative Review Tribunal, when it reviews that decision, stands in the shoes of the decision maker. The practical effect is that partner visa spent convictions can be disclosed to, and taken into account by, the people who decide the application. This is the legal reason the Department can ask about spent convictions on its forms, and the legal reason an applicant cannot rely on the spent convictions scheme to leave them out.

Why this is not unfair

Some applicants feel that the exclusion is unfair, because a spent conviction is supposed to let a person move on. The better way to see it is this: the scheme lets a person move on in employment and daily life, but Parliament has decided that the Minister should have the full picture when deciding who receives a visa. That full picture includes the age of the conviction, its seriousness and everything the person has done since. Disclosure is how an applicant makes sure that the full picture is a fair one.

Do state and territory spent conviction laws change partner visa disclosure?

No. State and territory spent conviction laws do not change the disclosure obligation for a partner visa. Each state and territory has its own scheme for convictions under its own laws, and those schemes matter in many everyday settings. However, the partner visa question is a Commonwealth question, asked by a Commonwealth decision maker, for a decision under a Commonwealth Act, and the question itself expressly reaches convictions that have been removed from official records.

Why the state scheme does not help

Applicants with partner visa spent convictions often point to a state law under which their conviction is spent and ask whether that protects them. In practice it does not, for three reasons. First, the Commonwealth scheme in Part VIIC also deals with disclosure of state, territory and foreign convictions in relation to Commonwealth authorities, and its migration exclusion applies. Second, the Department's question is drafted to include convictions removed from official records, whatever the source of the removal. Third, the decision maker can obtain information from police and other agencies, so an undisclosed conviction may come to light in any event.

The safe working rule

The safe working rule for partner visa spent convictions is simple. If a court in any country has ever recorded a conviction against you, assume it must be declared, and get advice before deciding otherwise. The cost of declaring something that, on careful analysis, did not need to be declared is small. The cost of failing to declare something that did need to be declared can be a refusal that affects future applications. If you are unsure, a short review by an immigration lawyer for a partner visa before lodgement is the sensible step.

Where the onshore application fits

Most people affected by partner visa spent convictions are applying onshore, often after arriving on another visa. Questions such as moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa are common, and the onshore applicant usually holds a bridging visa while the application is processed. The guide to work rights while waiting for a Subclass 820 visa and the guide to bridging visas in Australia explain that status. None of this changes the disclosure rule: every partner visa application, onshore or offshore, asks the same character questions.

How are quashed, pardoned and juvenile convictions treated for a partner visa?

Quashed, pardoned and juvenile convictions should generally be disclosed for a partner visa and then explained, because the character question asks about any conviction in any country, including convictions removed from official records, while the way the conviction is weighed depends on what actually happened to it. The categories below are the ones that cause the most confusion about partner visa spent convictions.

Quashed convictions

A quashed conviction is one that an appeal court has set aside. For the character test, section 501 of the Migration Act provides that a sentence is to be disregarded if the conviction concerned has been quashed or otherwise nullified. That is a strong protection, but it operates at the assessment stage. It does not authorise an applicant to give an answer that the Department may regard as incomplete. The safer approach is to disclose the original conviction, state clearly that it was quashed, and attach the appeal court's order.

Pardoned convictions

A pardon can have different effects. Under section 501, a sentence is to be disregarded for the character test where the person has been pardoned in relation to the conviction and the effect of the pardon is that the person is taken never to have been convicted. Department policy in a related sponsorship context draws a clear distinction between a person being fully pardoned, such as being exonerated, and a person being pardoned for the remainder of a custodial sentence. Only the first kind leads to the sentence being disregarded. Policy also notes that in some jurisdictions a pardon may only have the status of a spent conviction in Australia. For these reasons, a pardoned conviction should be disclosed with the pardon document, so that the decision maker can see which kind of pardon it is.

Juvenile convictions

A conviction recorded when the person was a minor is still a conviction. Under the Commonwealth scheme, a juvenile conviction can become spent after a shorter waiting period of 5 years, but the migration exclusion in paragraph 85ZZH(d) applies in the same way. Juvenile partner visa spent convictions should therefore be disclosed. In practice, offending as a young person, followed by many years of lawful conduct as an adult, is one of the most common situations decision makers see, and it is usually weighed with that history in mind.

Outcomes where no conviction was recorded

Some court outcomes involve a finding of guilt without the recording of a conviction, such as certain good behaviour bonds or dismissals. Whether such an outcome must be declared depends on the precise wording of each character question. For example, one question asks specifically about sexually based offences involving a child "including where no conviction was recorded". Other questions ask about convictions or pending charges. These distinctions are technical, and they should not be decided by guesswork. The correct approach is to obtain the court record, read each question with care, and take advice where the answer is not obvious. Where there is genuine doubt, disclosure with a clear explanation of the outcome is usually the safer course.

Convictions recorded overseas

The character question refers to convictions "in any country". An overseas conviction that has been expunged, sealed or removed from records under foreign law sits in the same category as other partner visa spent convictions: the form reaches convictions removed from official records, and it should be disclosed with the relevant foreign court documents and an explanation of the local process. The detail of overseas records and foreign police certificates is a separate topic covered in the wider guide to partner visas.

How are partner visa spent convictions assessed under the character test?

Partner visa spent convictions are assessed under the character requirements that apply to every partner visa, which centre on PIC 4001 and the character test in section 501 of the Migration Act 1958, and the assessment looks at the seriousness of the offence, the sentence, the time that has passed and the person's conduct since. A disclosed spent conviction is information to be weighed. It is not an automatic bar.

The character criteria at a high level

For a Subclass 820 visa, clause 820.223 requires the primary applicant to satisfy a list of public interest criteria that includes PIC 4001. The same character criteria apply at the permanent stage under subclause 801.223(1), and to the offshore Subclass 309 visa. They apply whether the couple is married or in a de facto relationship. In broad terms, PIC 4001 is satisfied where the applicant passes the character test, or where the decision maker is satisfied after appropriate inquiries that there is nothing to indicate the applicant would not pass it, or where the Minister has decided not to refuse the visa under section 501.

Section 501(6) of the Migration Act sets out the circumstances in which a person does not pass the character test. Those circumstances include having a "substantial criminal record", and also include the person's past and present criminal conduct or general conduct showing that the person is not of good character. If a case officer considers that an applicant may not pass the character test, the application may be referred for specialist consideration, and the decision whether to refuse is then guided by a ministerial direction made under section 499.

What a substantial criminal record means

Under section 501(7), a person has a substantial criminal record if, among other things, the person has been sentenced to death, to imprisonment for life, to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, or to two or more terms of imprisonment totalling 12 months or more. A suspended sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment for this purpose.

Most partner visa spent convictions do not come anywhere near this threshold. A typical old conviction is for a minor offence with a fine, a bond or community work. Those convictions do not create a substantial criminal record, although they remain relevant information. Where an old conviction did involve a sentence of 12 months or more, the matter is more serious and needs careful handling well before lodgement. That situation is outside the scope of this article and is a matter for specific advice.

How old minor convictions are weighed

Where partner visa spent convictions are minor and old, the practical question for the decision maker is whether anything about the person's record indicates a present risk to the Australian community. The factors that usually matter are:

• the nature and seriousness of the offence;
• the penalty actually imposed;
• how long ago the offence occurred;
• whether there has been any further offending;
• the person's age and circumstances at the time;
• evidence of rehabilitation and of the person's life since; and
• whether the person disclosed the conviction honestly.

The last factor deserves emphasis. Department policy in a related sponsorship context states that failure to disclose relevant convictions or charges where required should be considered as indicating a failure to accept responsibility and an increased risk of re-offending. Although that statement appears in a different policy, it reflects how decision makers generally think. An honest, complete disclosure of an old conviction works in the applicant's favour. A concealed conviction that is later discovered works strongly against the applicant.

A hypothetical example of an old minor conviction

Consider a hypothetical applicant who, at 19, was convicted of a minor theft offence and fined. The conviction is now more than 10 years old and is spent under the Commonwealth scheme. Since then, the applicant has completed a qualification, worked steadily and has had no further contact with police.

In this hypothetical case, the conviction must be declared. It does not create a substantial criminal record. The applicant should attach the court record showing the offence and penalty, and a short statement explaining the circumstances, the applicant's age, what has changed and what the applicant has done since. Properly disclosed, a record of this kind is generally weighed in context. Hidden, the same record could put the whole application at risk under PIC 4020.

Police certificates and partner visa spent convictions

Police certificates are the main way the Department checks criminal history for a partner visa, and applicants with partner visa spent convictions should assume that the check obtained for immigration purposes may show convictions that do not appear on an ordinary employment check. Department policy for sponsorship assessment refers to the Australian Federal Police National Police Check obtained for the "Immigration/Citizenship" purpose, and notes that the same type of certificate is required from visa applicants for the character criteria.

Why the police certificate is not the test

The question on the form is not "What does my police certificate show?". The question is whether the person has ever been convicted. An applicant who relies on a clear certificate from one country to answer "No", when the applicant knows of a conviction elsewhere or a conviction removed from records, has still answered incorrectly. The certificate is evidence. The answer must be based on what the applicant knows.

Police certificates at the permanent stage

The character criteria are assessed again at the permanent stage. Department policy for the Subclass 801 visa says that, to satisfy PICs 4001 and 4002, applicants are required to provide a current penal clearance for any country they have lived in for a cumulative period of 12 months or more since being granted the Subclass 820 visa. The Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 guide explains the two stages. A disclosure made correctly at the first stage should be repeated consistently at the second.

When a certificate expires during processing

Police certificates are generally valid for a limited period, and processing can take a long time. The guides on how long a Subclass 820 visa takes and partner visa 820 onshore timing explain why updated certificates are often requested. When a new certificate is obtained, the applicant should check that the information in it matches what was declared. A mismatch, even an innocent one, should be explained before the case officer raises it.

How partner visa spent convictions fit with the rest of the application

Partner visa spent convictions are not assessed in isolation. The decision maker reads the character disclosure alongside the relationship evidence, the forms, the relationship statement and every other document. A conviction disclosure that is accurate and consistent supports the credibility of the whole file.

Consistency across every document

The character details in the visa application, Form 80, any statement about the conviction and the police certificates must all match. Dates of offences, dates of court appearances, the court, the offence and the penalty should be identical wherever they appear. The guide to the partner visa relationship statement explains that the relationship statement is the couple's own account. A conviction does not normally belong in the relationship statement unless it is relevant to the relationship, but any reference to it must be consistent with the character disclosure.

Where the relationship history and the conviction overlap

Sometimes an old conviction is part of the couple's story, for example where the couple met during a difficult period in one partner's life. In that situation, the relationship statement may refer to it briefly, and the reference should match the formal disclosure. The partner visa relationship evidence guide and the guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explain how the evidence fits together.

Lodging through ImmiAccount

Character disclosures and supporting documents are usually attached through ImmiAccount under the relevant evidence type. Each document should be named clearly, for example "Applicant court record 2014 theft offence" or "Applicant statement about 2014 conviction". If the couple has not yet set up the account, the guide on how to create an ImmiAccount is the starting point. The 820 partner visa evidence checklist shows where character documents sit in the overall file.

Why is non-disclosure of partner visa spent convictions so dangerous?

Non-disclosure of partner visa spent convictions is dangerous because an incorrect answer to a character question can engage PIC 4020, the integrity criterion, which can lead to refusal of the visa even where the conviction itself would have caused no difficulty, and can also support cancellation after grant. In many cases, the old conviction is minor and the non-disclosure is the only real problem in the file.

PIC 4020 and false or misleading information

PIC 4020 is a criterion for the grant of a partner visa. Department policy for the Subclass 820 visa confirms that clause 820.226 requires the primary applicant to satisfy PIC 4020, and the Department's policy for the Subclass 801 and Subclass 309 visas lists the same criterion. PIC 4020(1) requires that there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the current application or a visa held in the 12 months before the application was made.

PIC 4020(5) explains that information is false or misleading in a material particular if it is false or misleading at the time it is given and relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider, whether or not a decision is made because of that information. A "No" answer to the conviction question, given by a person with partner visa spent convictions, is likely to be false at the time it is given and relevant to the character criteria. That is why a technically minor conviction can turn into a serious integrity problem.

The non-grant period

A refusal under PIC 4020 for false or misleading information can have effects beyond the current application. Under PIC 4020(2), the applicant must satisfy the decision maker that neither the applicant nor a member of the applicant's family unit has been refused a visa in the three years before the application on that basis. In practical terms, a refusal for an incorrect character answer can make it much harder to obtain another visa for a period. The reasons why partner visas get refused and the most common Subclass 820 refusal reasons show how often credibility issues lie behind a refusal. The guide to partner visa refused appeal options explains what can be done after a refusal.

The waiver

PIC 4020(4) allows the decision maker to waive PIC 4020(1) and PIC 4020(2) if satisfied that compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compelling or compassionate circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, justify the grant of the visa. Partner visa applicants often have an Australian sponsor whose interests are directly affected. A waiver is not automatic, and it should never be treated as a safety net. It is a discretion, and the applicant must make the case for it.

Natural justice before refusal

Department policy states that where a potential failure to satisfy PIC 4020 is identified, the applicant must be given an opportunity to comment. That invitation usually comes as a letter under section 57 of the Migration Act. The response is often the most important document in the case. The guide to the s57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explains how such a letter works, and the guide to responding to a section 56 request covers requests for more information.

Incorrect answers after grant

The obligation to answer correctly does not end at grant. The Migration Act requires visa applications to be filled in correctly, and a visa can be considered for cancellation where incorrect information was given. The process for incorrect answers discovered after lodgement or after grant is a separate subject. The point for this guide is simple: partner visa spent convictions should be disclosed at the start, so that the question never arises. Where a visa is already at risk, the visa cancellations page explains the help available.

What if the sponsor has partner visa spent convictions?

A sponsor with partner visa spent convictions should be prepared to disclose them, because the Department can request police checks from a partner sponsor, and a sponsor's convictions for certain offences can affect whether the sponsorship is approved under regulation 1.20KC of the Migration Regulations 1994. Spent status does not remove a conviction from that assessment.

How regulation 1.20KC works

Regulation 1.20KC applies to sponsorships for the Subclass 300, Subclass 309 and Subclass 820 visas. It is concerned with "relevant offences", which are offences against a law of the Commonwealth, a state, a territory or a foreign country involving matters such as violence against a person, harassment or stalking, breach of an apprehended violence order or similar order, firearms or dangerous weapons, people smuggling, and human trafficking or slavery-like practices.

Under subregulation 1.20KC(3), the sponsorship must generally be refused if the sponsor has been convicted of a relevant offence and has a significant criminal record within the meaning of regulation 1.20KD. Even then, subregulation 1.20KC(4) allows approval if it is reasonable to do so, having regard to matters including the time since the sentence was completed, the best interests of any relevant children, and the length of the relationship. The sponsorship limitations page and the guide on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explain the wider rules.

What a minor old conviction means for a sponsor

Department policy is clear that where a sponsor's convictions are for offences other than relevant offences, the sponsorship cannot be refused under regulation 1.20KC on that basis. Where a sponsor has a relevant offence but not a significant criminal record, the sponsorship also cannot be refused under that regulation, although, with the sponsor's consent, the Department may tell the applicant about the conviction. For most sponsors with minor partner visa spent convictions, this means the conviction is disclosed and assessed, but it does not stop the sponsorship.

Quashed and pardoned sponsor convictions

For the Subclass 820 visa, Department policy notes that under subclause 820.221(5) a sponsor's conviction is to be disregarded if it has been quashed or otherwise nullified, or if the sponsor has been pardoned and the effect of the pardon is that the sponsor is taken never to have been convicted. A sponsor in this position should still be ready to show the order or pardon, so that the Department can apply the rule correctly.

Can the sponsor's answers affect the applicant under PIC 4020?

Department policy says that information provided by a sponsor in support of a sponsorship is usually provided on the sponsor's own behalf, and that the mere fact the applicant permitted the sponsor to provide information may not be enough for PIC 4020(1) to apply to the applicant. That is not a reason for either partner to be careless. Inconsistent or incorrect answers by a sponsor can still damage credibility and can raise questions about the sponsorship itself.

How to disclose partner visa spent convictions with context

The right way to disclose partner visa spent convictions is to answer "Yes" to the relevant character question, give accurate details of each conviction, attach the official court and police records, and add a short factual statement explaining the circumstances, the time that has passed and the person's conduct since. Good disclosure turns a possible concern into a resolved issue.

Step 1: Identify every conviction

Start by listing every court matter you can remember, in any country, however old or minor. Then obtain the records that confirm each outcome. Many people with partner visa spent convictions are unsure of exact dates or penalties, and memory is often wrong. The aim is an accurate list, not a list from memory.

Step 2: Obtain the official records

For each conviction, obtain the court record or certificate of conviction, and sentencing remarks if they exist. Where a conviction was quashed or pardoned, obtain the order or instrument. Police certificates will be required for the character criteria in any event. These are documents the applicant can realistically obtain, and they carry far more weight than a summary written from memory.

Step 3: Answer each question precisely

Read each character question on the form and answer it on its own terms. If a question asks about convictions, list convictions. If it asks about pending charges or orders, deal with those separately. Do not merge distinct matters into one vague answer, and do not describe an offence in softer terms than the court record uses.

Step 4: Write a short statement giving context

A short statement, signed by the person with the conviction, helps the decision maker understand the record. It should state the offence, the date, the court and the penalty exactly as the record shows. It should then explain, briefly and honestly, the circumstances at the time, the person's age, whether the penalty was completed, and what has happened since. It should acknowledge responsibility. It should not argue with the conviction or blame others. A good statement is usually one or two pages long.

Step 5: Add evidence of rehabilitation and present conduct

Evidence of the person's life since the conviction can be helpful, particularly where partner visa spent convictions are many years old. Useful material may include evidence of stable employment, study, community involvement and character references from people who know about the conviction. A reference is far more persuasive when the writer confirms that they know about the conviction and still speaks to the person's present character. Character references are different from the Form 888 statements that support the relationship.

Step 6: Keep the disclosure consistent through to the permanent stage

Once disclosed, the conviction must be described in the same way in every later document, including updated forms, police certificates and any response to the Department. If anything changes, such as a new charge, it must be reported. The guide on Form 1022 change of circumstances explains how changes are notified.

What not to do

Do not answer "No" because a conviction is spent. Do not leave out an old conviction because a police certificate did not show it. Do not describe a conviction as "minor" without giving the actual offence and penalty. Do not wait for the Department to discover it. Each of these mistakes is common, and each turns manageable partner visa spent convictions into a credibility problem.

What Tribunal decisions show about convictions and disclosure

Tribunal decisions show that criminal history, police certificates, sponsor convictions and incorrect information are regularly at issue in partner visa reviews. The decisions below are remittals: in each, the Tribunal sent the matter back to the Department to reconsider. The descriptions are limited to the issues recorded for each decision. They do not mean any later outcome was a grant.

Criminal history and police certificates

In Bautista (Migration) [2021] AATA 606, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues recorded were criminal history statements, statements from the home country and Australia provided to the Tribunal, and driving disqualifications and fines disclosed. In Hansantiatanaded (Migration) [2022] AATA 596, the issues recorded were criminal history statements, a police certificate from the home country provided to the Department, an Australian Federal Police certificate provided to the Tribunal, and no disclosable court outcomes. In Pongsumran (Migration) [2023] AATA 3664, a Subclass 309 matter, the issues were a criminal history statement and a statement from the home country provided to the Tribunal.

Other remittals record police certificates provided at the review stage, including Collier (Migration) [2023] AATA 1840, Page (Migration) [2024] AATA 215, Sesay (Migration) [2024] AATA 28 and Lee (Migration) [2022] AATA 2940. In Fouracres (Migration) [2024] AATA 61, the issue recorded was that the Australian Federal Police certificate expired before the visa was finalised and a new certificate was provided to the Tribunal. In Lou (Migration) [2019] AATA 4665 and Bernhardt (Migration) [2019] AATA 2462, the issues concerned PIC 4001 and character information that had not been provided to the delegate and was later provided.

Sponsor convictions

In 2107808 (Migration) [2024] AATA 4136, a Subclass 309 matter, the issues recorded were sponsorship requirements, a conviction for a relevant offence and a suspended sentence, that sponsorship may be approved if reasonable to do so, and remorse and no reoffending. In Ellis (Migration) [2024] AATA 3411 and 2120175 (Migration) [2024] AATA 540, the issues recorded included a sponsor convicted of a relevant offence, a significant criminal record, the length of the relationship and the time since completing the sentence. In Naureen (Migration) [2024] ARTA 468, the issues included the sponsor's significant criminal record and the time elapsed since the last imprisonment.

Incorrect and misleading information

In TRUONG (Migration) [2024] AATA 680 and Pham (Migration) [2021] AATA 4350, the issues recorded concerned false or misleading information in a previous visitor visa application about marital status. In HASSAN (Migration) [2019] AATA 6523, the issues recorded were that the applicant had given false or misleading information and that the requirements of PIC 4020 were waived where a dependent child had been born of the relationship. These decisions concern different subject matter from partner visa spent convictions, but they show how seriously incorrect answers are treated, and that the waiver discretion is assessed case by case. The guide to what to expect at an ART review explains the review process, a visa appeal lawyer can assess whether a refusal is worth taking further, and review deadlines are short and strictly applied. Couples who have had an earlier refusal should also read the guide to a partner visa after a visa refusal.

How My Migration Lawyers helps with partner visa spent convictions

My Migration Lawyers helps couples with partner visa spent convictions by reviewing the full criminal history before anything is lodged, confirming exactly what must be declared, and presenting the disclosure with the records, context and evidence of rehabilitation the decision maker needs. The firm deals with complex cases, acts in many partner visa matters involving old convictions, character questions and sponsor criminal history, and is capable of handling matters where the character issue sits alongside other problems in the application.

What the firm does in a partner visa spent convictions matter

First, the firm takes instructions on every court matter the applicant and sponsor can recall, in any country, and identifies which records are needed to confirm each outcome. Second, it reviews each character question against the records, so that the answers are accurate and complete. Third, it assesses how any conviction is likely to be weighed under PIC 4001, section 501 and, for a sponsor, regulation 1.20KC. Fourth, it reviews the applicant's own statement about the conviction, and the applicant corrects and confirms it as the applicant's own account. Fifth, it checks the character disclosure against Form 80, the police certificates and the relationship evidence so that every detail matches. Sixth, it keeps the disclosure consistent through to the permanent stage.

Where the Department has already raised a concern, the firm prepares the response to a section 56 request or a section 57 letter, including any submission on the PIC 4020(4) waiver. Where a partner visa has been refused, the firm reviews the decision and advises on review through its partner visa refusals practice and its broader visa refusals work. The firm also advises on issues that often arise in the same files, such as Schedule 3 waivers, the Schedule 3 criteria for applicants without a substantive visa, and family violence provisions.

When couples come to the firm

Couples come to My Migration Lawyers at different points. Some want partner visa spent convictions reviewed before they lodge, which is the best time. Some lodged themselves and want the file checked afterwards, as covered in the guide to hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application. Some want a second opinion from an immigration lawyer on advice received elsewhere. Others come when a letter from the Department has arrived and time matters, which is covered in the guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice. Couples comparing options can read partner visa lawyer vs doing it yourself and the factual comparison of a migration agent vs immigration lawyer. Where the firm is appointed, it lodges Form 956 so the Department corresponds with the firm, and the guide to booking an immigration lawyer consultation explains the first meeting. The guide to what an immigration lawyer does explains the wider role.

Who handles your matter

Partner visa work at My Migration Lawyers is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. My Migration Lawyers is an Australian immigration law firm, and more about the firm is on the About My Migration Lawyers page and the partner visa lawyers page. The firm acts for couples across Australia, including partner visa clients in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta, with consultations by video. The guides to the best partner visa lawyer in Australia and to choosing a partner visa lawyer explain what to look for.

Book a consultation about partner visa spent convictions

If you or your partner have an old conviction, the right time to deal with partner visa spent convictions is before the application is lodged or before you respond to the Department. Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your record reviewed and your disclosure prepared correctly. You can also call 1300 040 300.