Partner Visa Sponsor Mistakes That Cause Refusals

Partner visa sponsor mistakes are one of the most common reasons a genuine couple receives a refusal. The Australian partner who sponsors a Subclass 820, Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 visa has legal obligations of their own, and partner visa sponsor mistakes are judged against those obligations, not against how strong the relationship is.

Many refusals in this area have nothing to do with whether the couple loves each other. They happen because a sponsorship form was never lodged, a police check request sat in an inbox, a previous sponsorship was not disclosed, or a sponsor withdrew support during an argument and never put it right. This guide explains the partner visa sponsor mistakes that most often cause refusals, the law that turns each mistake into a refusal ground, and the practical steps that prevent them.

The firm's partner visa lawyers page explains how sponsor-side issues are handled from the start of a matter, and the complete guide to partner visas in Australia sets out every subclass and stage. Applicants who want the other side of the picture can read the separate guide to partner visa application mistakes.

What are the most common partner visa sponsor mistakes?

The most common partner visa sponsor mistakes are failing to lodge the sponsorship form on time, ignoring requests for police checks, not disclosing previous sponsorships or relationships, giving statements that conflict with the applicant's, refusing consent to disclose relevant convictions, withdrawing sponsorship in anger, ignoring section 56 and section 57 letters, missing the review deadline, choosing the wrong visa pathway and travelling at the wrong time.

Each of those partner visa sponsor mistakes attacks a different criterion. Some stop the sponsorship being approved. Some create a finding that false or misleading information was given. Some make the application invalid or leave the applicant without a lawful pathway. Some simply remove the right to have the refusal reviewed.

The common thread is that the sponsor is a party to the application in a real legal sense. The partner visa sponsor guide and the article on partner visa sponsor requirements explain who can sponsor. This article focuses on what goes wrong after that point.

Why do partner visa sponsor mistakes lead to a visa refusal?

Partner visa sponsor mistakes lead to refusal because approval of the sponsorship is a time of decision criterion for the visa itself. If the sponsorship is not approved and in force when the Department decides the application, the visa cannot be granted.

For the onshore Subclass 820 visa, subclause 820.221(4) requires that, at the time of decision, the sponsorship has been approved by the Minister and remains in force. For the offshore Subclass 309 visa, subclause 309.222(1) is to the same effect. The Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa has an equivalent criterion in clause 300.222. There is no separate sponsorship decision that can be challenged on its own. The sponsorship is assessed as part of the visa decision.

This is why partner visa sponsor mistakes are so costly. A couple can provide years of joint finances, photographs and Form 888 statements, and the visa will still be refused if the sponsor cannot be approved. The firm's guides to how sponsorship approval works and to the sponsorship assessment explain the process in detail.

The sponsorship can fail for several separate reasons. Regulation 1.20J limits the number and timing of partner sponsorships. Regulation 1.20KA limits certain Contributory Parent visa holders. Regulation 1.20KC deals with sponsors convicted of relevant offences and with police checks. Each of those provisions is explained on the firm's commercial page on partner visa sponsorship limitations. Most partner visa sponsor mistakes trigger one of them, or give the Department a reason to doubt the relationship.

Partner visa sponsor mistakes with the sponsorship form

The first group of partner visa sponsor mistakes concerns the sponsorship form itself: not lodging the online "Sponsorship for a Partner to Migrate to Australia" form, lodging it late, or lodging it with incomplete or inaccurate answers.

For most applicants, a Subclass 820 or Subclass 309 application is valid even if the sponsorship has not yet been lodged. The Department's instructions say the online sponsorship form is the approved form but is not prescribed under Schedule 1, so the visa application can be made without it. That flexibility is where many sponsors go wrong. They assume the application is "in" and that the sponsorship can wait. It cannot wait indefinitely, because the visa cannot be granted unless the sponsorship is approved at the time of decision.

Section 48 applicants must lodge the sponsorship at the same time

The exception is an applicant in Australia who is subject to section 48 of the Migration Act. Section 48 generally applies to a person without a substantive visa who has had a visa refused or cancelled since last entering Australia. For that applicant, paragraph 1124B(3)(e) of Schedule 1 requires the completed sponsorship form, signed by the sponsoring partner, to be provided at the same time and place as the application, together with two supporting Form 888 statements from Australian citizens, permanent residents or eligible New Zealand citizens. Missing either requirement means the Subclass 801 application, and the Subclass 820 application made with it, is not valid.

That is one of the most serious partner visa sponsor mistakes, because an invalid application gives the applicant no bridging visa and no review rights. The firm's guides to the section 48 bar for partner visas and to invalid partner visa applications explain how this arises.

What happens when the sponsorship is never lodged

Where the sponsorship is simply never lodged, the Department will usually request it, and if it still does not arrive the visa will be refused. Two remittals in the Partner Visa ART Remittals database show how this plays out on review:

• In Martine (Migration) [2023] AATA 690, a Subclass 309 matter, the issues recorded were that the applicant failed to provide the sponsorship form 40SP, then provided the completed form 40SP, and that the Tribunal found the applicant was now sponsored. The Tribunal remitted the matter.
• In Manalo (Migration) [2024] AATA 1927, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues recorded were that the sponsorship form and other requested material were not provided to the Department, COVID restrictions and access issues, prehearing, oral and witness evidence, and departmental policy. The Tribunal remitted the matter.

These decisions show that the problem can sometimes be corrected on review. They also show the cost of the mistake: a refusal, a review application, the Tribunal fee and many months of delay that a lodged form would have avoided. The firm's guides to partner visa sponsorship lodgement and to what happens when the sponsorship is not lodged explain the timing, and the short answer on the Form 40SP for a partner visa covers the form itself.

Partner visa sponsor mistakes with police checks

Ignoring a request for police checks is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes most likely to produce a refusal, because regulation 1.20KC(6) gives the Department a discretion to refuse to approve the sponsorship if the sponsor does not provide the requested checks within a reasonable time.

Under regulation 1.20KC(5), the Department may ask the sponsor for police checks from Australia and from any country where the sponsor has lived. The Regulations do not prescribe a deadline. Department policy, however, treats 28 days from the date of the request as a reasonable time for the sponsor to provide the checks or, at a minimum, evidence that they have been requested. Policy recognises that more time may be appropriate, particularly for foreign checks.

The partner visa sponsor mistakes in this area are usually about silence rather than criminal history. Department policy states that grounds to refuse the sponsorship exist where the response period has ended and the sponsor has not provided the checks, has not provided evidence of having started the process, has not given a satisfactory explanation, and has not engaged with the Department in any way about the request. A sponsor who replies with a receipt for an overseas police certificate request is in a very different position from a sponsor who does nothing.

Requests sent electronically are presumed under Department policy to be received when they are sent. A sponsor who changes email address, or who lets the applicant manage all correspondence, can miss a request entirely. The Subclass 820 remittal in Sathandla Halli Vijayakumar (Migration) [2022] AATA 91 records issues of a genuine and continuing relationship, insufficient information concerning the sponsor, the sponsorship declaration and a National Police Check. The Tribunal remitted the matter.

The firm's articles on the partner visa sponsor police check, on what happens when a sponsor police check is not provided and on the police check policy for female sponsors explain each stage. Where a check reveals a conviction, the guide to partner visa sponsor relevant offences explains which offences matter.

Partner visa sponsor mistakes with identity and status documents

Providing incomplete or unclear evidence of the sponsor's identity and status is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that delays decisions and invites requests the couple could have avoided.

The Department needs to be satisfied that the sponsor is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. Department guidance on sponsorship forms says an Australian citizen will usually provide a copy of their citizenship certificate or, if born in Australia, a full birth certificate. A permanent resident provides evidence of the visa held. An eligible New Zealand citizen needs evidence of protected Special Category Visa status, not just a New Zealand passport.

The partner visa sponsor mistakes that arise here are usually small but avoidable:

• uploading an Australian passport only, where the Department has asked for evidence of how citizenship was acquired;
• providing a birth certificate extract rather than a full certificate showing the parents' names;
• not explaining a change of name, so the sponsor's documents appear to belong to different people;
• providing documents in another language without an English translation; and
• relying on an old address or email for Department correspondence after moving.

None of these is a refusal ground on its own. Each one, however, gives the Department a reason to send a request, and every request adds time and a fresh deadline that can be missed. The firm's guides to proof of the sponsor's citizenship, to partner visa sponsor eligibility and to evidence translation explain what is usually needed, and the short answer on proving the sponsor is an Australian citizen covers the most common situation.

Partner visa sponsor mistakes about previous sponsorships

Failing to disclose a previous partner sponsorship, or the sponsor's own sponsored visa, is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that the Department is most likely to detect, because officers check the sponsor's answers against Department sponsorship records.

Regulation 1.20J limits partner sponsorships in three ways. In summary, under Department policy, a person may have at most two approved partner or prospective spouse sponsorships. Even within that limit, a person who has sponsored a partner cannot have another sponsorship approved until at least five years after the first visa application was made. A person who was themselves sponsored as a partner cannot sponsor a partner until at least five years after their own visa application was made. The requirements can be waived under regulation 1.20J(2) if there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor.

Department policy tells officers to have regard to the information the sponsor gave in the sponsorship form and to Department sponsorship records. A sponsor who answers "no" to a question about previous sponsorships, when the records show otherwise, has not avoided the limitation. The sponsor has added a credibility problem to it.

How the five years is measured

The five-year period is measured from the date the earlier visa application was made to the date the current sponsorship is approved or refused, not to the date the new application was lodged. That point is often misunderstood. A sponsor who lodges four years and nine months after the earlier application may be approved if the decision is made after five years have passed. Department policy gives exactly that example.

Two remittals show how time and disclosure interact:

• In Dhindsa (Migration) [2019] AATA 5650, a Subclass 309 matter, the issues recorded were approval of sponsorship, that five years had not elapsed since the review applicant had been sponsored, and that the review applicant's previous application was withdrawn. The Tribunal remitted the matter.
• In Rogers (Migration) [2020] AATA 4743, a Subclass 309 matter, the issues recorded were sponsorship limitations, that five years had not lapsed since the earlier visa application, that five years elapsed during the review process, and a genuine and continuing relationship. The Tribunal remitted the matter.

Policy also states that a previous sponsorship counts only if it led to the grant of a visa, and that the two stages of a partner visa count as one sponsorship. Those rules can help a sponsor, but only if the sponsor's history is set out accurately. The firm's guides to when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa, to compelling circumstances for partner visas and to a sponsor's own visa history explain the detail, and the short answer for a sponsor who has sponsored before explains when advice is needed.

Partner visa sponsor mistakes about previous relationships and marriages

Leaving out a previous marriage, de facto relationship, child or visa application is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that can turn a straightforward case into a false information refusal.

The sponsorship form and the visa application both ask about previous relationships. The sponsor's answers must match the applicant's answers and the Department's records. Where they do not, the Department may consider whether false or misleading information has been given. For the applicant, that engages public interest criterion 4020, which can lead to refusal and, in some cases, a period during which further visas cannot be granted. The firm's guide to PIC 4020 and partner visas explains how that criterion works.

The Subclass 820 remittal in 2107016 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2250 records issues that the parties provided false or misleading information, that the applicants failed to disclose details of a previous relationship and a Subclass 300 visa application, and the sponsor's mental health. The Tribunal remitted the matter. The case illustrates how a sponsor-side omission can become a central issue in the applicant's refusal.

A sponsor's earlier marriage also matters for a different reason. If the sponsor's divorce was not final when the sponsor married the applicant, the later marriage may not be valid for migration purposes, and the relationship will have to be assessed as a de facto relationship instead. Department policy says that a marriage that is not recognised must be assessed against the de facto definition in section 5CB. The firm's articles on how previous relationships affect a partner visa, on an undeclared relationship and on a partner visa while still married cover these issues.

The safest approach is full disclosure with an explanation. A short previous relationship, a divorce overseas or a past visa application that went nowhere is rarely fatal. Hiding it often is.

Partner visa sponsor mistakes in statements and interviews

Giving statements that conflict with the applicant's account is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that most often damages the genuine relationship assessment, because the Department compares the two accounts line by line.

The sponsor usually provides a personal statement about the history of the relationship, and may be interviewed by phone or in person. The four matters in regulation 1.15A (for a married relationship) and regulation 1.09A (for a de facto relationship) are financial aspects, the nature of the household, social aspects and the nature of the commitment. When the sponsor's dates, addresses, family events or explanation of how the couple met differ from the applicant's, the officer may infer that the relationship is not genuine.

Common partner visa sponsor mistakes in this area include:

• writing the statement from memory without checking dates against passports, leases and messages;
• describing the first meeting or the proposal differently from the applicant;
• understating or overstating time spent living together;
• giving the Department a different explanation for a period apart than the applicant gave;
• allowing someone else to write the statement and signing it without reading it; and
• answering interview questions with guesses rather than saying "I do not remember".

The Subclass 309 remittal in 1620095 (Migration) [2019] AATA 400 records issues of false information, inconsistent information submitted, the Tribunal being satisfied of the visa applicant's identity, and a genuine and continuing relationship. The Tribunal remitted the matter. Inconsistency can be explained, but it is far better avoided.

Each partner should review and correct their own statement, and the two statements should be read side by side before lodgement. The firm's guides to partner visa relationship statements, to conflicting statements, to interview inconsistencies and to the sponsor interview explain how to prepare. The short answer on differences between relationship statements deals with the question most couples ask.

Partner visa sponsor mistakes with consent to disclose convictions

Expressly refusing consent for the Department to disclose relevant offence convictions to the applicant is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that leads directly to refusal, because that consent is a time of decision criterion for the visa.

Department policy states that if the sponsorship form shows the sponsor does not consent to disclosure of convictions for relevant offences, grounds to refuse the visa exist, because clause 300.222, clause 309.222 or clause 820.221 cannot be met. The Department must then invite the applicant to comment by a section 57 letter before deciding.

Some sponsors decline consent because they have no convictions and see the question as intrusive, or because they do not want an old matter disclosed. Neither reason helps. A sponsor with no relevant convictions loses nothing by consenting. A sponsor with a conviction for a relevant offence that does not amount to a significant criminal record cannot be refused on that basis under regulation 1.20KC(3), but policy is to disclose the conviction to the applicant with the sponsor's consent. Refusing consent turns a manageable disclosure into a refusal. The firm's guides to the partner visa sponsor criminal record and to a significant criminal record explain the thresholds.

Withdrawing sponsorship in anger: one of the costliest partner visa sponsor mistakes

Withdrawing sponsorship during an argument is one of the costliest partner visa sponsor mistakes, because once the Department acts on a withdrawal the sponsorship is no longer in force and the visa will be refused unless an exception applies.

The sponsorship undertaking includes an agreement to inform the Department in writing if the sponsor withdraws support before the application is finalised. A sponsor is entitled to do that where the relationship has genuinely ended. The mistake is withdrawing in the heat of a dispute and then reconciling, or sending a withdrawal email that does not reflect the sponsor's considered position.

Where the couple reconciles, the Department may accept that the sponsor again supports the application, but it will look closely at whether the relationship is genuine and continuing, and it may interview both parties. The remittals in the database show this can be resolved:

• In Al Hassan (Migration) [2018] AATA 3480, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues recorded were a genuine and continuing relationship, sponsorship withdrawal revoked, the parties reconciled and the applicant working overseas. The Tribunal remitted the matter.
• In Mehta (Migration) [2024] ARTA 847, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues recorded were a genuine and continuing relationship, withdrawal and reinstatement of sponsorship, families who did not approve of the inter-caste relationship, and DNA test results for the child. The Tribunal remitted the matter.

A withdrawal also has consequences beyond the visa. Where the relationship has ended because of family violence by the sponsor, or the couple has a child, the applicant may still have a pathway under Division 1.5 or the child provisions. Those provisions protect applicants. They do not make a hasty withdrawal harmless. The short answers on whether a sponsor can withdraw sponsorship and on withdrawing and then reconciling, together with the guide to partner visa relationship breakdown and the firm's family violence partner visa page, explain the options.

Partner visa sponsor mistakes with section 56 and section 57 letters

Ignoring or answering a section 56 request or a section 57 letter late is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that most often turns a curable problem into a refusal.

Under section 56 of the Migration Act, the Department may invite an applicant to give additional information. Under section 57, before refusing, the Department must generally give the applicant particulars of adverse information that would be a reason, or part of the reason, for refusal, and invite comment. Both letters set a response period. The Department can decide the application once that period ends, whether or not a response has arrived.

Sponsors make these partner visa sponsor mistakes in three ways. First, the letter is addressed to the applicant and the sponsor assumes it is not their concern, even though it asks about the sponsor's documents or history. Second, the sponsor provides only part of what was asked and does not explain what is missing. Third, the response argues with the officer rather than answering the specific concern.

A strong response addresses each item in the letter, attaches evidence, explains any gaps in the sponsor's own words and, where more time is genuinely needed, asks for it before the deadline. The firm's guides to the section 56 request, the section 57 natural justice letter and the section 56 extension explain the process. The short answers on a missed section 56 deadline and on not responding to a section 57 letter explain what happens next.

Missing the review deadline after a refusal

Missing the Administrative Review Tribunal deadline is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that cannot be fixed, because the time limit in section 347(3) of the Migration Act cannot be extended.

An application for review of a partner visa refusal must be made within 28 days after notification of the decision, or 7 days if the applicant is in immigration detention. The review fee must be paid within the same period. For fees paid on or after 1 July 2026, the migration review fee is AUD 3,727. The fee can be reduced by 50% for financial hardship, and 50% of the fee is refunded if the decision is set aside, varied or remitted.

Who applies depends on the visa:

• for a Subclass 820 refusal, the applicant applies;
• for a Subclass 309 refusal, current Department instructions state that the visa applicant applies under regulation 4.02(5)(raa); and
• for a Subclass 300 refusal, the sponsor applies.

There is no merits review of a Subclass 100 refusal made while the applicant is outside Australia. Where the Subclass 820 application is refused onshore, a Bridging visa A linked to it ceases 35 days after the refusal, or 35 days after the Tribunal decision if review is sought.

Sponsors often make partner visa sponsor mistakes here by waiting to "gather evidence" before lodging the review, or by assuming the deadline runs from when they read the letter. Review should be lodged within time and evidence provided afterwards. The firm's guides to the partner visa appeal deadline, ART fees for partner visas and the ART review process explain each step, and the short answers on who applies for review of an offshore refusal and on the review fee reduction cover common questions. Where the deadline is close, the urgent visa refusal review page explains how the firm acts quickly.

Choosing the wrong partner visa pathway

Choosing the wrong subclass is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that can make an application invalid, leave the applicant without a bridging visa or require a waiver the couple did not plan for.

The main choices are the onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 combination, the offshore Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 combination, and the Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa for an engaged couple who will marry in Australia. All applicants for a Subclass 309 visa must be outside Australia when they apply, under paragraph 1220A(3)(b) of Schedule 1. A Subclass 820 applicant must be in Australia.

Sponsors make partner visa sponsor mistakes in pathway choice in several ways:

• lodging onshore when the applicant holds a visa with condition 8503 or another "no further stay" condition that has not been waived;
• lodging onshore when the applicant has no substantive visa and has not addressed the Schedule 3 criteria;
• lodging a de facto application before the relationship meets the 12-month requirement, without a registered relationship or another recognised exception;
• lodging a Subclass 300 application when the couple are already married, or a spouse application before a marriage that is recognised for migration purposes; and
• lodging offshore while the applicant is in Australia.

The Partner visa application charge for the Subclass 820 and 801, or Subclass 309 and 100, combination is AUD 11,710 for most applicants at the time of writing. That is a significant sum to put at risk on the wrong subclass. The firm's guides to onshore versus offshore partner visas, the no further stay condition and the Schedule 3 criteria explain the risks, and the firm's Schedule 3 waivers page covers waiver applications. The short answer comparing the Subclass 820 and Subclass 309 is a useful starting point.

Travelling at the wrong time

Travelling at the wrong time is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that can cost the applicant a bridging visa, a grant or a first entry deadline.

For the Subclass 309 visa, subclause 309.412(1) provides that the applicant must be outside Australia when the visa is granted, subject to a limited COVID-era concession in subclause 309.412(2). A couple who bring the applicant to Australia on a visitor visa while the Subclass 309 is processing must plan for the applicant to be offshore when the decision is made. Once granted, policy is that the first entry date for a Subclass 309 visa should be 12 months from grant.

For onshore applicants, a Bridging visa A does not let the holder return to Australia after leaving. An applicant who needs to travel should obtain a Bridging visa B before departure and return within its travel period. A Bridging visa B ceases if the travel facility ends while the holder is outside Australia, and it cannot be extended after it is granted. Sponsors who book a family holiday overseas without checking the applicant's bridging visa make one of the simplest partner visa sponsor mistakes to avoid.

The firm's guides to overseas travel during a partner visa, the Bridging visa B and the first entry deadline explain the rules, and the short answer on travel while a partner visa is processing covers the common scenarios.

Assuming the sponsor's own status is secure

Assuming the sponsor's own visa or citizenship status is secure is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that can remove the foundation of the application.

The sponsor must be an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. A New Zealand citizen who is not an eligible New Zealand citizen cannot sponsor unless they first obtain Australian citizenship or permanent residence. A permanent resident whose visa is cancelled, or who is outside Australia without a valid travel facility, can face serious problems.

The Subclass 820 remittal in Vispo (Migration) [2023] AATA 694 records issues that the sponsor's permanent visa was cancelled and that the Tribunal, differently constituted, set aside the cancellation of the sponsor's visa. The Tribunal remitted the matter. The firm's guides to a sponsor's permanent residence cancellation, to the sponsor's resident return visa and to sponsors on temporary visas explain the risks.

Misunderstanding the sponsor's obligations

Misunderstanding the sponsorship undertaking is one of the partner visa sponsor mistakes that rarely causes an immediate refusal but often causes trouble later.

By signing the undertaking, the sponsor agrees, among other things, to ensure adequate accommodation and provide financial assistance as required to meet the applicant's reasonable living needs for up to two years from arrival, or from grant if the applicant applied in Australia, and to inform the Department if the sponsor withdraws support. The firm's guides to partner visa sponsor obligations and the sponsor undertaking explain what the undertaking requires, and the guide to sponsor documents explains what evidence is usually needed.

Can partner visa sponsor mistakes be fixed after a refusal?

Yes, many partner visa sponsor mistakes can be addressed on review, because the Administrative Review Tribunal considers the application afresh and can take into account the evidence and circumstances that exist when it makes its decision.

A sponsorship form lodged late, police checks provided after the Department's deadline, a corrected account of a previous relationship, or a sponsor who has reconciled with the applicant can all be put before the Tribunal. In limitation cases, the passage of time during the review can also matter, because the five years under regulation 1.20J is measured to the date of the sponsorship decision. Where the Tribunal is satisfied that a criterion is now met, it commonly remits the matter to the Department with a direction, and the Department then completes the remaining checks.

Some partner visa sponsor mistakes cannot be fixed this way. A review application lodged outside the 28-day or 7-day period is not valid, and the Tribunal has no power to extend the time. An invalid visa application, for example a section 48 application made without the sponsorship form, gives no review right at all. A finding under public interest criterion 4020 can carry consequences beyond the current application. In those situations the realistic options may be a fresh application, a different pathway, or in limited cases judicial review or a request for ministerial intervention.

The short answers on whether to seek review or make a new application and on a Tribunal remittal, together with the guide to partner visa appeal versus reapplication, explain how that choice is made.

How My Migration Lawyers helps sponsors avoid partner visa sponsor mistakes

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex partner visa cases, acts in many matters where a refusal has been caused or threatened by partner visa sponsor mistakes, and is capable of handling sponsor-side problems from the first assessment through to review at the Administrative Review Tribunal. The firm's Principal Lawyer is Weiwei Zhang, and the firm's approach is explained on the about My Migration Lawyers page.

On a matter involving partner visa sponsor mistakes, or a risk of them, the firm:

• checks the sponsor's eligibility, citizenship or visa status and previous sponsorship history against regulation 1.20J before anything is lodged;
• confirms the correct subclass and lodgement location, including section 48, condition 8503 and Schedule 3 issues;
• makes sure the online sponsorship is lodged at the right time, and with the application where section 48 requires it;
• manages police check requests, including foreign checks, so the sponsor responds within the policy timeframe;
• advises on consent to disclose and on any relevant offence history under regulation 1.20KC;
• presents the sponsor's and the applicant's own accounts, which each of them reviews and corrects, so the statements are accurate and consistent;
• advises before any withdrawal of sponsorship and on reinstatement after reconciliation;
• prepares responses to section 56 requests and section 57 letters within the deadline; and
• lodges review applications within time where a refusal has already been made.

The firm acts for sponsors across Australia through its partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. Couples who have already been refused can read about the firm's partner visa refusal lawyers and wider visa refusals work, and the short answer on what happens when a partner sponsorship is refused. Couples about to lodge can ask for a check of the partner visa before lodging, and those under time pressure can use the urgent partner visa lodgement service.

Most partner visa sponsor mistakes are preventable if the sponsor's side is reviewed before lodgement, or the moment a Department letter arrives. Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers, or call 1300 040 300.