Partner Visa Sponsor Holding a Contributory Parent Visa

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder faces a specific sponsorship limit that most couples have never heard of. If a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder's permanent visa was granted on or after 1 July 2009, and the couple were already married or in a de facto relationship on or before the grant, regulation 1.20KA of the Migration Regulations 1994 stops the Department approving a partner or fiance sponsorship for five years from the day of that grant.

The rule targets a particular practice called a "split visa application". It catches couples who were together when one of them migrated as a contributory parent, and it does not catch couples whose relationship began later. This guide explains exactly who regulation 1.20KA catches, who it does not, which visas it affects, how the five years are counted, how the Department finds out, and what the Administrative Review Tribunal has done in these cases.

The wider sponsorship rules are set out on the commercial page for partner visa sponsorship limitations, and the hub article explains when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa in Australia. The complete guide to partner visas explains each pathway.

Can a contributory parent visa holder sponsor a partner?

Yes, a contributory parent visa holder can sponsor a partner, but if the couple were already in a spouse or de facto relationship on or before the permanent Contributory Parent visa was granted, the sponsorship cannot be approved until five years after that grant date, unless the regulation 1.20KA(3) exception applies.

A permanent Contributory Parent visa makes the holder an Australian permanent resident. Australian permanent residents are generally eligible to sponsor a partner, as the guides to a partner visa sponsor who is a permanent resident and partner visa sponsor eligibility explain. The question for a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder is not eligibility in general. It is whether regulation 1.20KA blocks approval of this particular sponsorship at this particular time.

The answer depends on three facts:

• Which visa was granted, and when it was granted.
• When the relationship with the partner began.
• When the Department will decide the partner visa, measured against the fifth anniversary of the grant.

If the relationship began after the Contributory Parent visa was granted, regulation 1.20KA does not apply at all. If it began on or before the grant, the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder must wait out the five years, or rely on the regulation 1.20KA(3) exception. The FAQ on who can sponsor a partner visa gives the basic eligibility rules.

What is regulation 1.20KA and how does it affect a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder?

Regulation 1.20KA is a sponsorship limitation, in force from 1 July 2009, that prevents a person granted a permanent Contributory Parent category visa from sponsoring their existing spouse or de facto partner for a Partner or Prospective Marriage visa for five years from the day the Contributory Parent visa was granted.

For a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder, the source of the rule is the Department's procedural instruction on Division 1.4B, "Limitation on certain sponsorships under Division 1.4". It says regulation 1.20KA applies to applications made on or after 1 July 2009 for:

• the Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa;
• the Subclass 820 Partner visa; and
• the Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa.

The regulation prevents a person from sponsoring their partner or fiance for five years from the day they were granted their permanent Contributory Parent visa, which means a Subclass 143 Contributory Parent visa or a Subclass 864 Contributory Aged Parent visa, if they:

• were granted that permanent Contributory Parent category visa on or after 1 July 2009; and
• were in a spouse or de facto partner relationship with that person on or before the date the Contributory Parent visa was granted.

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder who meets both conditions is caught. The limitation is lifted only by the passing of five years or by the exception in regulation 1.20KA(3). The guide to partner visa sponsorship assessment explains how sponsorship limitations are assessed inside the visa decision.

Regulation 1.20KA is separate from regulation 1.20J

Regulation 1.20KA is not the same rule as regulation 1.20J, and a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa assessment must keep them apart. Regulation 1.20J limits people who have sponsored partners before, or who were themselves sponsored as partners. A Contributory Parent visa is not a partner visa, so a Contributory Parent grant does not engage regulation 1.20J(1)(c). The two rules run independently, and a sponsor can be caught by one, both or neither. The FAQ on whether a sponsor who has sponsored a partner before can get help explains the regulation 1.20J side.

Why does the rule exist? The split visa application

The rule exists to stop "split visa applications", where one member of a couple migrated as a contributory parent while claiming the other was not migrating, and then sponsored that partner on a cheaper partner visa once permanent residence was granted.

The Department's instruction describes the history behind the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa limitation. After the Contributory Parent visa category was introduced in 2003, a practice developed in which:

• one member of a married or de facto couple applied for a Contributory Parent category visa;
• that applicant claimed their partner was not migrating; and
• once the applicant became a permanent resident, they sponsored their partner under the Partner visa provisions.

The instruction explains that this saved the couple a substantial sum. The couple avoided the second instalment of the visa application charge that a secondary applicant on the Contributory Parent application would have paid, and avoided the assurance of support bond that applies to each secondary applicant. The second person also avoided the 10 year assurance of support period that applies to Contributory Parent category visas.

A split visa application was not prohibited before 1 July 2009, which is why the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa rule only applies to grants from that date. The instruction says it was, however, contrary to the policy intention of the Contributory Parent category, which is to ensure that migrating parents contribute more fully to their future health and welfare costs. Regulation 1.20KA was introduced to discourage the practice while still allowing Partner and Prospective Marriage visas in some circumstances.

Understanding this purpose matters in every partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa case. The Department is told to keep the purpose in mind when it decides whether the exception applies. A couple whose facts look like a split visa application will be scrutinised closely. A couple whose facts are genuinely different, for example because the partner could not migrate for a serious non-financial reason, has a different case to make.

The four elements of a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa limitation

The limitation applies only when all four elements are present: a permanent Subclass 143 or Subclass 864 visa, granted on or after 1 July 2009, to a sponsor who was in a spouse or de facto relationship with the partner on or before the grant date, where the partner visa sponsorship would be approved within five years of that grant.

Element 1: a permanent Subclass 143 or Subclass 864 visa

The instruction refers to the permanent Contributory Parent category visas: the Subclass 143 Contributory Parent visa and the Subclass 864 Contributory Aged Parent visa. For a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa assessment, the temporary Contributory Parent category visas, Subclass 173 and Subclass 884, are part of the split visa history described in the instruction, but the five year bar runs from the grant of the permanent visa.

Element 2: granted on or after 1 July 2009

A permanent Contributory Parent visa granted before 1 July 2009 is outside the regulation, so the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa limitation never applies to it. This date matters for older grants and for people whose permanent visa applications were lodged before 1 July 2009 but decided afterwards. The grant date, not the application date, is the one that counts for this element.

Element 3: relationship on or before the grant date

The sponsor must have been in a spouse or de facto partner relationship with the person now being sponsored on or before the date the Contributory Parent visa was granted. This element is what links the rule to split visa applications. A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder who met the partner after the grant is not caught.

Element 4: within five years of the grant

In a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa case, the sponsorship cannot be approved for five years from the day the permanent Contributory Parent visa was granted. Because sponsorship approval is decided as part of the visa decision, the practical question is whether the Department, or the Tribunal on review, will decide the sponsorship before or after the fifth anniversary of the grant. The FAQ on what happens if my partner's sponsorship is refused explains the consequence if the limitation is not met.

Who is caught by the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa rule?

The rule catches a permanent Contributory Parent visa holder, granted on or after 1 July 2009, who now wants to sponsor the same spouse or de facto partner they were with when the Contributory Parent visa was granted.

In practice, a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder is usually caught in one of these situations:

• The non-migrating partner. A parent applied for a Subclass 143 visa from overseas and listed their spouse as not migrating. After the grant, the parent wants to sponsor that spouse on a Subclass 309 visa.
• The partner who was withdrawn. Both partners were on the Contributory Parent application, but the partner's application was withdrawn before grant. The granted parent now wants to sponsor them.
• The onshore aged parent. A parent was granted a Subclass 864 visa in Australia while their de facto partner remained overseas or held a temporary visa. The parent now wants to sponsor the partner on a Subclass 820 visa.
• The fiance already in a relationship. A parent who was in a de facto relationship at the time of the grant wants to sponsor the same person on a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa, intending to marry in Australia.

In each case, the couple's relationship existed on or before the grant date, so the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa limitation applies for five years from that date. The guide to the Subclass 309 Partner visa, the guide to the Subclass 820 Partner visa and the guide to the Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa explain each visa.

Married and de facto relationships are both caught

The regulation refers to a spouse or de facto partner relationship, and the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa rule treats both forms the same way. A couple does not avoid the rule by having been in a de facto relationship rather than a marriage at the time of the grant. What matters is the existence of the relationship on or before the grant, not its legal form. Where a couple separated or divorced before the grant and later reconciled, whether they were in a relationship on or before the grant is a question of fact that needs careful advice. The guides on de facto partner visas in Australia and overseas marriages recognised in Australia explain how each relationship type is recognised.

Who is not caught by regulation 1.20KA?

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder is not caught where the relationship began after the Contributory Parent visa was granted, where the permanent visa was granted before 1 July 2009, or where five years have already passed since the grant.

The main groups outside the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa rule are:

• New relationships. A Contributory Parent visa holder who met and began a relationship with the partner after the grant date is not caught, because the relationship did not exist on or before the grant.
• Pre 1 July 2009 grants. A person whose permanent Subclass 143 or Subclass 864 visa was granted before 1 July 2009 is outside the regulation.
• Grants more than five years ago. Once five years have passed from the day of the grant, the limitation no longer prevents approval.
• Non-contributory parent visa holders. The Department's instruction describes regulation 1.20KA as applying to persons granted a permanent Contributory Parent category visa, Subclass 143 or Subclass 864. It does not refer to the non-contributory Parent visa, Subclass 103, or the Aged Parent visa, Subclass 804. A holder of one of those visas who wants to sponsor a partner is therefore assessed under the ordinary sponsorship rules, including regulation 1.20J, rather than regulation 1.20KA.
• Temporary Contributory Parent visa holders. A person who holds only a temporary Subclass 173 or Subclass 884 visa is not yet a permanent resident, so they are not eligible to sponsor a partner in the first place. The five year bar runs only once the permanent Subclass 143 or Subclass 864 visa is granted.

The articles on a partner visa sponsor on a temporary visa and the FAQ can a temporary visa holder sponsor a partner visa explain why temporary residents cannot sponsor. The article on a partner visa sponsor whose own PR is still pending explains the position of a parent still waiting for the permanent grant.

What about a contributory parent who becomes a citizen?

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder who later becomes an Australian citizen should not assume that citizenship removes the limitation. The regulation is framed around a person who was granted a permanent Contributory Parent visa and the date of that grant, not around the visa the sponsor currently holds. The safer view is that the five year period continues to run from the grant date regardless of a later grant of citizenship. The guides on a partner visa sponsor who recently became a citizen and a partner visa sponsor applying for citizenship at the same time cover the related timing issues.

Which visas are affected?

Regulation 1.20KA affects sponsorships for Subclass 309, Subclass 820 and Subclass 300 applications made on or after 1 July 2009, which together cover offshore partner, onshore partner and fiance applications.

The permanent Subclass 100 and Subclass 801 stages are not listed separately because, in the two-stage partner visa process, the sponsorship is approved as part of the decision on the temporary visa. The Department's instruction on regulation 1.20J explains that there is no separate sponsorship approval process for the permanent stage, and that the permanent stage criteria refer back to the sponsor approved for the temporary visa. A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder therefore faces the regulation 1.20KA question when the Subclass 309, Subclass 820 or Subclass 300 sponsorship is decided.

This has practical consequences for each partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa pathway:

• Subclass 309 (offshore). The partner applies outside Australia and the sponsor lodges the sponsorship. The decision date is usually some time after lodgement, which affects the five year calculation. The guide to the offshore partner visa explains the process.
• Subclass 820 (onshore). The partner must be in Australia and must satisfy the onshore validity rules, including any Condition 8503 or Schedule 3 issue. The guide to the onshore partner visa explains those rules.
• Subclass 300 (fiance). The sponsor and fiance must intend to marry in Australia. The Subclass 300 refusal review is lodged by the sponsor, not the applicant. The FAQ on who can sponsor a prospective marriage visa sets out the basic rules.

How are the five years calculated?

The five years are counted from the day the permanent Contributory Parent visa was granted, and the sponsorship cannot be approved until that five year period has passed, so the critical comparison is between the fifth anniversary of the grant and the date the partner visa sponsorship is decided.

This is different from the regulation 1.20J rules. Under regulation 1.20J, the five years run from the date an earlier partner visa application was made. Under regulation 1.20KA, they run from the date the Contributory Parent visa was granted. Many couples confuse the two. In a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa case, the application date of the Contributory Parent visa is irrelevant to the calculation. Only the grant date matters.

Where to find the grant date

For a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder, the grant date appears on the Contributory Parent visa grant notice. It can also be checked through the Department's Visa Entitlement Verification Online service, or through the sponsor's ImmiAccount if the application was lodged online. Where the sponsor has lost the grant notice, a request to the Department may be needed. The grant date should be confirmed from a primary document, not from memory.

Worked examples

The following partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa scenarios are hypothetical and use round dates to show the method.

Example 1: lodged too early, decided after the anniversary. A parent was granted a Subclass 143 visa on 10 August 2022. The parent's husband was listed as not migrating. The husband applies for a Subclass 309 visa on 1 March 2026, with the parent as sponsor. The five years from the grant end in August 2027. If the Department decides the application after that point, the regulation 1.20KA limitation no longer prevents approval. If the Department decides it before that point, the sponsorship cannot be approved unless the regulation 1.20KA(3) exception applies.

Example 2: relationship began after the grant. A parent was granted a Subclass 864 visa on 5 May 2023. The parent met a new partner in Australia in 2024 and began a de facto relationship. A Subclass 820 application is lodged in 2026. Regulation 1.20KA does not apply, because the couple were not in a relationship on or before 5 May 2023. The ordinary sponsorship rules still apply.

Example 3: period ends during processing. A parent was granted a Subclass 143 visa on 20 January 2021, and the parent's wife remained overseas. A Subclass 309 application is lodged in October 2025. The fifth anniversary of the grant passes in January 2026, while the application is still being processed. When the Department decides the application later in 2026, the limitation no longer prevents approval.

Example 4: grant before 1 July 2009. A parent was granted a Subclass 143 visa in May 2009. Regulation 1.20KA does not apply to that grant at all, because it was made before 1 July 2009.

Lodging before the five years have passed

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder may be tempted to lodge before the five years have passed, on the expectation that processing will carry the decision past the anniversary. That can work, as Example 3 shows. It can also fail, if the Department decides the application earlier than expected. The decision to lodge early should be made with a clear view of the likely decision date, the cost of the application and the review options if the sponsorship is refused. The FAQ on partner visa processing time onshore and offshore and the guide to partner visa sponsorship delays explain the timing considerations.

Common misunderstandings about the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa rule

The most common misunderstandings are that the five years run from the parent visa application, that becoming a citizen ends the bar, that the rule affects every parent visa, and that the bar means the couple can never be together in Australia.

Each of these is wrong, and each can lead to a costly mistake:

• "The five years start when I applied for the parent visa." No. For a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder, the five years run from the day the permanent Contributory Parent visa was granted. Parent visa applications can take many years to decide, so the difference between the two dates can be very large.
• "Citizenship resets the clock." Citizenship is not mentioned in the regulation as an end point. The safer view is that the limitation continues to run from the grant date.
• "Every parent visa holder is caught." The Department's instruction refers only to the permanent Subclass 143 and Subclass 864 visas granted on or after 1 July 2009. Other parent visas are not named.
• "We met after I arrived, but we will be treated as a split visa couple." A relationship that began after the grant is outside the rule entirely. What the couple need is evidence of when the relationship began.
• "The bar is permanent." The bar lasts five years from the grant, and the regulation 1.20KA(3) exception may apply sooner where the non-financial reasons are compelling.

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa assessment should test each of these assumptions against the documents before any decision about lodging is made. The guides on partner visa sponsor requirements and the general guide to what the partner visa sponsor must do set out the wider sponsor obligations.

When regulation 1.20J also applies

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder may also be caught by regulation 1.20J if they have sponsored a partner before or were themselves sponsored as a partner, and the two limitations must be checked separately.

For example, in a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa case, a parent who sponsored a former spouse for a partner visa some years before migrating as a contributory parent may have used one of their two lifetime sponsorships under regulation 1.20J(1)(a). If the earlier sponsorship was recent, the five year rule in regulation 1.20J(1)(b) may also apply, measured from the earlier partner visa application date. Each limitation has its own exception: regulation 1.20J(2) for compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor, and regulation 1.20KA(3) for compelling non-financial reasons. The FAQ can I sponsor more than one partner and the FAQ on how to challenge a refusal involving sponsorship limitations explain how the regulation 1.20J side is approached.

How does the Department find out about the contributory parent visa?

The Department checks its own records for a Contributory Parent grant in every relevant partner visa case, whether or not the sponsor discloses it, so a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa history cannot be hidden and should never be left out.

The Department's instruction tells officers to check the Partner visa application to establish whether the sponsor has previously been granted a permanent Subclass 143 or Subclass 864 visa. It then says that, regardless of whether the information has been provided in the Partner visa application, officers should check the Department's systems to establish whether the sponsor has been granted a Contributory Parent visa on or after 1 July 2009.

The partner visa forms also ask the partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa question directly. The paper version of the partner and prospective marriage application form asked the applicant whether they had ever been granted a contributory parent category visa, and whether their partner obtained permanent residence under a Contributory Parent or Contributory Aged Parent visa. The online process asks equivalent questions of the applicant and the sponsor. A wrong answer is likely to be detected, and will damage the couple's credibility on every other issue in the case.

The guides on Form 40SP, the sponsorship form, partner visa sponsor documents and the partner visa sponsor undertaking explain what the sponsor declares, and the guide to partner visa sponsor proof of citizenship or residence explains how the sponsor's status is shown.

What the earlier contributory parent application said about the partner

The sponsor's earlier Contributory Parent application will usually have described the partner, often as a non-migrating member of the family unit or as an applicant who later withdrew, and the new partner visa application must be consistent with that record.

In a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa case, the Department can compare what the sponsor said years ago with what the couple say now. If the Contributory Parent application said the partner did not intend to migrate, the new application should explain honestly what changed. If the Contributory Parent application did not mention the partner at all, that omission is itself a serious issue that requires advice before anything further is lodged.

Integrity concerns for the applicant and the sponsor

PIC 4020 is a criterion that the visa applicant must meet. It concerns bogus documents or false or misleading information given in relation to the applicant's current application, or a visa the applicant held in the 12 months before applying. A statement made by the sponsor in the sponsor's own Contributory Parent application is not the applicant's information under PIC 4020, but inconsistencies between the two files still go to credibility and the genuineness of the relationship. Where the earlier Contributory Parent application left out or misdescribed the partner, the sponsor should also obtain advice about any exposure on the sponsor's own visa before the partner visa is lodged. The guides on partner visa PIC 4020, a partner visa sponsor with their own visa history problems and a partner visa sponsor whose PR is under cancellation explain these risks.

What has the Tribunal done in contributory parent sponsorship cases?

The Administrative Review Tribunal, and the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, have remitted partner visa refusals involving regulation 1.20KA back to the Department, including where the five years from the Contributory Parent grant had passed by the time of review.

Two Tribunal remittals involve a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder:

• Ly (Migration) [2022] AATA 409 (Subclass 820). The recorded issues were the time limit prior to sponsorship, that the sponsor is a Contributory Parent visa holder, and that the parties re-married in Australia. The matter was remitted, meaning sent back to the Department for reconsideration.
• Rahman (Migration) [2020] AATA 3380 (Subclass 309). The recorded issues were that the sponsorship remains in force, and that five years had lapsed from the grant of a permanent Contributory Parent visa. The matter was remitted to the Department.

Rahman illustrates the time of decision point in practice. A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa limitation that applied when the Department made its decision can fall away by the time the Tribunal makes its own decision, because the Tribunal decides the matter on the law and facts as they stand when it decides. The guides to partner visa ART review, new evidence at the Tribunal and how long a Tribunal review takes explain how review works.

Is there an exception to the contributory parent limitation?

Yes. Under regulation 1.20KA(3), the limitation does not apply if the person who applied for the Contributory Parent visa had compelling reasons, other than reasons related to their financial circumstances, for the partner not applying at the same time, or for the partner applying at the same time and then withdrawing.

The Department's instruction gives examples where the partner could not migrate because of a major family illness or other significant obligations that were not financial, and says the applicant should be able to show a change in circumstances that now allows the partner visa application. It also lists two particular groups where policy would support the exception: certain same-sex de facto couples who were in a relationship before 1 July 2009, and certain bridging visa holders who last held a temporary Subclass 173 or Subclass 884 visa, applied for the permanent visa before 1 July 2009, and could not add their partner.

The exception is narrow, and many partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holders will not meet it. Reasons connected with saving the second instalment of the visa application charge, or the assurance of support bond, are financial and do not qualify. The exception needs strong evidence of the original reason and of the change since. Because it is a substantial topic of its own, it is covered in depth in a separate My Migration Lawyers guide on the contributory parent waiver. For a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder, the key point is that the exception exists, that it turns on non-financial reasons, and that it should be considered before deciding whether to lodge now or wait.

Should you lodge now or wait for the five years to pass?

The answer depends on how far away the fifth anniversary is, how long the chosen visa is likely to take, whether the regulation 1.20KA(3) exception is realistically available, and where the partner is now.

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder usually faces one of three positions:

• The five years have already passed. The limitation no longer applies. The application is assessed under the ordinary criteria, with full disclosure of the Contributory Parent history.
• The five years will pass soon. Lodging now may be reasonable if the decision is likely to fall after the anniversary. The risk is an earlier decision and a refusal. The couple should understand the review options before lodging.
• The five years are some way off. Unless the exception is strongly arguable, waiting is often safer than lodging an application that is likely to be refused. Meanwhile, the couple can build relationship evidence and gather documents.

The partner's location matters too in a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa case. A partner overseas will usually apply for a Subclass 309 visa. A partner in Australia on a visitor visa may face Condition 8503, which must be waived before any onshore application, and may also face Schedule 3 if their visa has ended. The guides on the partner visa Condition 8503 waiver, Schedule 3 criteria for a partner visa, a partner visa while on a tourist visa and the FAQ on a spouse visiting Australia on a visitor visa explain those issues. The guide comparing onshore and offshore partner visas helps with the choice of pathway.

Building the evidence while waiting

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa couple who decide to wait should use the time well. They should keep evidence of the financial aspects of the relationship, the household, the social aspects and their commitment, including travel, communication and support. They should also gather Form 888 statements from people who know them as a couple. The guides to the four pillars of a partner visa, partner visa relationship evidence, Form 888 witness statements and a partner visa long distance relationship explain what to collect.

Practical issues for older couples and long relationships

Many couples in a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa situation are older, have been married for many years, and have adult children in Australia, which shapes the evidence, the health requirements and the visa pathway.

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder is often a parent who migrated to be near adult children. The partner may be of a similar age, retired, and still living in the home country. These facts raise practical questions that sit alongside the sponsorship limitation:

• Long-term relationships. Where the couple have been in a relationship for at least three years, or at least two years with a dependent child of the relationship, the permanent stage visa may be granted at the same time as the temporary visa. Many couples in this situation have been married for decades. The guides on a partner visa long-term relationship and whether a Subclass 801 can be granted straight away explain the rule.
• Health. The partner must meet the health requirement. Older applicants may have existing medical conditions that need careful handling. The guides on partner visa health requirements and the FAQ on a health condition and a partner visa explain the test.
• Income. A partner visa sponsor does not need to meet a minimum income test, and a retired parent sponsor is not excluded for that reason. The FAQ on whether a sponsor needs a minimum income and the FAQ on whether a lawyer can help if the sponsor is on Centrelink cover this.
• Living apart. Couples who lived in different countries because one migrated as a contributory parent must explain the separation and show that the relationship continued. The FAQ on long distance relationships and partner visas and the guide on partner visa temporary separation explain how this is evidenced.

In a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa matter, the five year question is often the first hurdle, but it is not the only one. A long marriage makes the genuineness of the relationship easier to show, but the period of living apart still needs a clear explanation.

Documents a contributory parent sponsor should gather

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa holder should gather the Contributory Parent grant notice, the earlier parent visa application and any withdrawal or non-migrating declarations, proof of the relationship start date, and current evidence of the relationship.

A practical list is:

• The permanent Subclass 143 or Subclass 864 grant notice, showing the exact grant date.
• Any earlier temporary Subclass 173 or Subclass 884 grant notice, to show the history.
• A copy of the Contributory Parent application, including any form that described the partner as not migrating, or any withdrawal of the partner's application.
• The marriage certificate, or evidence of when the de facto relationship began.
• Evidence of the relationship since the grant: communication, visits, financial support and household arrangements.
• Form 888 statements from people who know the couple, including adult children where appropriate.
• Evidence for the regulation 1.20KA(3) exception, if it is to be argued.

The partner visa document checklist, the FAQ on what documents the sponsor needs to provide and the guide to a partner visa application review before lodgement explain how to organise these.

What happens if the sponsorship is refused under regulation 1.20KA?

If the sponsorship is refused under regulation 1.20KA, the partner visa is refused, and the refusal can usually be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal within strict time limits.

The partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa sponsorship is decided within the visa decision. There is no separate notice to the sponsor, and a sponsorship that is not approved means the visa must be refused. The application for review must be made within 28 days after the applicant is notified, or 7 days if the applicant is in immigration detention, and the time cannot be extended. For a Subclass 820 refusal and a Subclass 309 refusal, the visa applicant lodges the review. For a Subclass 300 refusal, the sponsor lodges it. The Tribunal fee for a migration review is $3,727 for fees paid on or after 1 July 2026, with a 50% reduction for financial hardship and a 50% refund if the decision is set aside or remitted.

Because the Tribunal decides on the facts at the time of its own decision, a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa limitation that expires while the review is pending can be taken into account, as the issues recorded in Rahman show. The commercial page on partner visa refusals, the FAQ on the review deadline after a partner visa refusal, the FAQ on who applies for review of an offshore refusal, the article on partner visa ART fees and the FAQ can a lawyer help with a partner visa sponsorship refusal set out the next steps. Onshore applicants who hold a Bridging visa A generally keep it while a valid review is pending, as the guide on a bridging visa after a partner visa refusal explains.

How My Migration Lawyers helps contributory parent visa holders sponsor a partner

My Migration Lawyers advises permanent residents and citizens who migrated on a Contributory Parent visa and now want to bring their partner to Australia, and the firm acts in many matters of exactly this type, where regulation 1.20KA, the earlier parent visa record and the timing of the new application must be managed together.

A partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa case is technical. It turns on exact grant dates, the history of the earlier parent visa application, the way the partner was described in that application, and the likely decision date of the new one. My Migration Lawyers deals with complex sponsorship cases and is capable of handling each of these parts, so that the couple lodge at the right time with an accurate and consistent account.

The firm's work in partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa matters includes:

• confirming whether regulation 1.20KA applies, using the grant notice and the relationship history;
• calculating the fifth anniversary of the grant and the likely decision window for each visa pathway;
• checking whether regulation 1.20J also applies to the sponsor;
• reviewing what the earlier Contributory Parent application said about the partner;
• assessing whether the regulation 1.20KA(3) exception is realistically available;
• preparing the partner visa and sponsorship, including relationship evidence and Form 888 statements; and
• acting on Administrative Review Tribunal review if the sponsorship is refused.

The firm's partner visa lawyers work with sponsors across Australia and with partners overseas by video. The guide to complex partner visa lawyer work, the answer on whether there is a partner visa lawyer who handles complex cases and the guide to a partner visa sponsor risk assessment before lodgement describe the approach. These matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer.

If you hold, or once held, a Contributory Parent visa and want to sponsor your partner, a partner visa sponsor contributory parent visa matter should be checked before anything is lodged. Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers, or call 1300 040 300.