Partner Visa Sponsor Whose Former Partner Got PR on Family Violence Grounds

A partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence situation arises when an Australian sponsor's former partner was granted permanent residence under the family violence provisions, and the sponsor now wants to sponsor a new partner. The partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence question most sponsors ask is whether that grant counts against them. It does. The earlier sponsorship counts toward the limits in regulation 1.20J of the Migration Regulations 1994.

Many sponsors in a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence position are surprised. They did not support the former partner's permanent visa. They may have withdrawn their sponsorship. They may deny that any family violence occurred, and they may never have been asked for their side of the story. None of that changes the count. What it does change is how the new application should be prepared, how any waiver argument should be framed, and how carefully the sponsor's history needs to be handled.

This guide is written for the Australian sponsor. It explains why the earlier sponsorship counts, how the five year period is calculated, why the sponsor is usually not involved in the former partner's claim, whether the family violence finding affects the new sponsorship in other ways, and how compelling circumstances are argued. The firm's service page on partner visa sponsorship limitations explains how My Migration Lawyers assists sponsors caught by these rules, and the guide on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa sets out every sponsorship limitation in one place.

Does a former partner's family violence grant count toward the sponsor limits?

Yes. A former partner's permanent visa granted on family violence grounds counts toward the sponsor limits in regulation 1.20J. The Department's instruction on regulation 1.20J gives this exact example. It says a sponsorship counts where the applicant was granted a permanent spouse visa on family violence grounds, because although the relationship has ceased, the visa was granted as a result of the original sponsorship for the temporary visa.

In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the result is the same whatever the sponsor thinks of the claim. The test in regulation 1.20J is whether the earlier sponsorship resulted in the grant of a visa. A grant under the family violence provisions is still a grant.

Regulation 1.20J contains three limits:

• Regulation 1.20J(1)(a): a person may have at most two approved partner, spouse, de facto partner or prospective marriage (fiance) sponsorships in a lifetime.
• Regulation 1.20J(1)(b): a sponsor who has sponsored a partner or fiance cannot have another sponsorship approved until at least five years after the previous visa application was made.
• Regulation 1.20J(1)(c): a person who was themselves sponsored as a partner or fiance cannot sponsor a partner until at least five years after their own visa application was made.

A partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence grant engages limits (a) and (b). It uses one of the two lifetime sponsorships, and it starts a five year period from the date the former partner's application was made. The answers on whether a person can sponsor more than one partner and whether a lawyer can help where the sponsor has sponsored a partner before give a short overview of these rules.

Two-stage visas count once

In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the earlier sponsorship counts once, not twice. Where the former partner held a Subclass 820 visa and was then granted the permanent Subclass 801 on family violence grounds, or held a Subclass 309 visa and was then granted the Subclass 100, there is one counted sponsorship. The Department's instruction explains that there is no separate sponsorship approval for the permanent stage. The partner visa two-stage process and the comparison of Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 explain how the stages connect.

How do the family violence provisions work for the former partner?

The family violence provisions allow a partner visa applicant to be granted a visa after the relationship with the sponsor has ended, where the applicant or certain family members suffered family violence committed by the sponsor. Understanding how the former partner's grant was made helps a sponsor in a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence situation understand what the Department's file contains.

Where the provisions apply

The provisions apply at several points in the partner visa process:

• Subclass 820 stage: subclause 820.221(3) allows the Subclass 820 visa to be granted where the relationship has ended and the applicant, or a dependent child of the sponsor or the applicant or both, has suffered family violence committed by the sponsor.
• Subclass 801 stage: subclause 801.221(6) allows the permanent Subclass 801 visa to be granted where the relationship has ceased since the Subclass 820 grant and family violence was committed by the sponsor. These applicants do not need to wait the usual two years.
• Subclass 309 and Subclass 100: the offshore pathway also has family violence provisions. For the Subclass 309, the applicant must have entered Australia at some point after making the application.
• Former Subclass 300 holders: subclause 820.211(8) applies to a person who held a Subclass 300 visa, married the sponsor, and whose relationship ended because of family violence before the Subclass 820 application was made.

A sponsor reviewing a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence history should identify which of these provisions was used, because it shows which visa was granted and when. The firm's pages on family violence partner visa claims and the guide to partner visa family violence options explain these provisions from the applicant's side.

Judicially determined and non-judicially determined claims

Family violence claims are made in one of two ways under Division 1.5 of the Regulations. A judicially determined claim relies on a court document, such as a Family Law Act injunction, a State or Territory court order, or a conviction or finding of guilt against the alleged perpetrator in respect of the alleged victim. A non-judicially determined claim relies on other evidence of the kinds prescribed in a legislative instrument, and policy refers to two pieces of evidence from that instrument.

The distinction matters in a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, because it determines whether the sponsor's denial could ever have been weighed. Where a judicially determined claim is made with evidence that meets the Regulations, the Department's instruction says the alleged victim is taken to have experienced family violence and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed it. Conflicting information, including the alleged perpetrator's denial, cannot be taken into account for that purpose. Where a non-judicially determined claim is made, the delegate can consider conflicting information and, if not satisfied, refer the claim to an independent expert. The guides on partner visa family violence evidence, family violence claims without a police report and whether a police report or court order is needed explain the evidence rules.

The relationship must have been genuine until it ended

A grant under the family violence provisions is not a finding about family violence alone. The former partner must also have been the sponsor's spouse or de facto partner until the relationship ended. The Department's instruction on the Subclass 820 visa states that an applicant cannot satisfy the family violence criterion unless the delegate is satisfied that the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor until the relationship ceased. The family violence must also have occurred, at least in part, while the relationship existed.

That point can matter later. In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the former partner's grant usually means the Department accepted that the earlier relationship was genuine. That can be relevant when the sponsor argues that the first sponsorship was made in good faith. The guide on the genuine and continuing relationship test explains what that finding involves.

Partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence: the facts to confirm first

The facts to confirm first are the date the former partner's application was made, which visas were granted and when, and whether any conviction or court order exists. Every partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence assessment depends on those facts. Without them, advice about timing or a waiver is guesswork.

A sponsor preparing for advice should gather as much of the following as possible:

• The visa subclass of the former partner's application. Was it a Subclass 820 and Subclass 801, or a Subclass 309 and Subclass 100? The partner visa guide covering every subclass explains the differences.
• The date the former partner's application was lodged. This starts any five year period.
• Whether the temporary visa was granted before the relationship ended. If it was, the sponsorship counts regardless of the permanent stage.
• Any court documents. These include protection orders, intervention orders, apprehended violence orders and any criminal proceedings.
• The sponsor's police checks. These show what the Department will see under regulation 1.20KC.
• Whether the sponsor was ever sponsored as a partner or fiance. That raises regulation 1.20J(1)(c) as a separate issue.
• The sponsor's current status. The ordinary partner visa sponsor eligibility rules and the answer on who can sponsor a partner visa still apply.

In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence file, the sponsor often holds only part of this information. That is common and manageable. The partner visa questions hub collects the firm's answers on many of these related issues.

Why is the sponsor usually not involved in the former partner's claim?

The sponsor is usually not involved because Department policy prohibits contact with the alleged perpetrator about the claim and restricts what can be disclosed. This is the most frustrating part of a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence history for many sponsors, but it is deliberate.

The Department's family violence instruction says that, once a claim is made, no contact should be made with the alleged perpetrator about the alleged victim or the application. Officers are told not to ask the alleged perpetrator whether family violence occurred. If the alleged perpetrator contacts the Department and denies the claim, officers are told not to discuss it further. The instruction also says information about the alleged victim's application, including whether a family violence claim has been made, must not be disclosed to anyone without the applicant's written consent. The purpose is to protect the safety of people who claim to have experienced family violence.

The same instruction recognises some realities that matter to sponsors. It says that alleged perpetrators may hold strong views that their conduct was not family violence, and may not be objective once a relationship has ended. It also says that it is possible for a perpetrator of family violence to also be a victim of family violence, and that this can be a reason to refer a non-judicially determined claim to an independent expert.

Tribunal decisions in the firm's records show how these claims are assessed from the applicant's side. In Topcubasi (Migration) [2021] AATA 806, a Subclass 820 matter was remitted (sent back) to the Department where the recorded issues were a non-judicially determined family violence claim and statutory declarations. In 2000852 (Migration) [2024] AATA 3125, a Subclass 820 matter was remitted where the recorded issues were family violence committed by the sponsor and a credible witness. In 2210939 (Migration) [2026] ARTA 699, a Subclass 820 matter was remitted where the recorded issues were that post-traumatic stress disorder affected the hearing, family violence by the sponsor, and inconsistent evidence. These decisions show that the assessment is focused on the applicant's evidence. The sponsor is not a party to it.

A partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence history therefore often reaches the sponsor without any detail. The sponsor may know only that the former partner remained in Australia and later became a permanent resident. The firm's answer on whether information from an ex-partner or a tip-off can be used against a partner visa explains the related issue of information flowing the other way.

Partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence: what counts and what does not

A former partner's grant counts if any visa was granted on the strength of the original sponsorship, and does not count if no visa was ever granted. The partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence analysis follows the Department's grant-based rule.

The common situations are:

• The former partner was granted the Subclass 820, then the Subclass 801 on family violence grounds. The sponsorship counts once.
• The former partner was granted the Subclass 820 on family violence grounds under subclause 820.221(3). The sponsorship counts, because a visa was granted on the strength of it.
• The former partner was granted the Subclass 309, then the Subclass 100 on family violence grounds. The sponsorship counts once.
• The former partner made a family violence claim, but the Subclass 820 application was refused and no visa was granted. On the grant-based rule, the sponsorship does not count, because no visa resulted from it.
• The former partner was granted the Subclass 820, but the family violence claim at the Subclass 801 stage failed. The sponsorship still counts, because the Subclass 820 was granted.
• The sponsor withdrew the sponsorship before any grant, but the former partner was later granted on family violence grounds. The sponsorship counts, because the grant flowed from the original sponsorship.

The Department's instruction lists other examples that follow the same logic. A sponsorship counts where the visa was granted but the applicant never travelled, where the visa was cancelled before entry, and where a fiance visa was granted but the marriage did not take place. A sponsorship does not count where the connected visa application was refused. The firm's answer on applying for a partner visa with a new partner after a previous one and the guide on partner visa previous relationship history explain the wider picture.

When the sponsor does not know the outcome

In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence situation, the sponsor sometimes does not know whether the former partner was granted a visa. Because of the privacy rules described above, the Department will generally not tell the sponsor. The answer may come from the former partner, from family law proceedings, or from other sources. Where the outcome cannot be confirmed, the safer course is to assume the sponsorship counts and to prepare for the five year rule or a waiver. Officers will check the Department's own sponsorship records in any event.

When does the five year period start and end?

The five year period starts on the date the former partner's visa application was made and ends on the date of decision on the new sponsorship. The Department's instruction says the date of the original visa application is important and the date of the sponsorship decision is the critical date.

In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the following dates do not start the five years:

• the date the former partner's Subclass 820 or Subclass 309 visa was granted;
• the date the former partner was granted the permanent visa on family violence grounds;
• the date the family violence claim was made;
• the date the relationship ended or the sponsor withdrew; and
• the date of any court order or criminal proceeding.

The end date is the date of decision on the new sponsorship, because approval of the sponsorship is a time of decision criterion. The Department's own example describes an earlier spouse application made on 1 January 1994, a new Subclass 300 application made on 1 October 1998, and a decision on 1 March 1999. Five years had passed by the date of decision, so the sponsorship could be approved even though the new application was lodged inside the five years.

When five years pass during processing or review

A limitation that applies at lodgement can fall away before the decision. Tribunal decisions in the firm's records show this. In Rogers (Migration) [2020] AATA 4743, a Subclass 309 matter was remitted where five years had not lapsed since the earlier visa application, five years elapsed during review, and the relationship was genuine and continuing. In Ba (Migration) [2021] AATA 1251, a Subclass 820 matter was remitted where the five-year limitation had expired. In Kairpal (Migration) [2019] AATA 1914, a Subclass 309 matter was remitted where there was a previous sponsorship of a partner and the five-year limitation had passed. For a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case close to the five year mark, this timing rule can remove the need for a waiver. The firm's answer on how to challenge a refusal involving sponsorship limitations explains how it applies at review.

Finding the former partner's application date

In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the sponsor needs the date the former partner's application was made. Sponsors often have it in old correspondence, the sponsorship acknowledgement, or ImmiAccount records from the time. Where the sponsor's own records are incomplete, the guides on requesting an immigration file through FOI and downloading an application copy from ImmiAccount explain the options. Information about the former partner's family violence claim is unlikely to be released to the sponsor.

Worked examples of partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence cases

These examples are hypothetical and simplified. They show how the same partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence grant can lead to different timing outcomes.

Example 1: five years already passed

Consider a sponsor whose former partner lodged a Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application in February 2020. The Subclass 820 was granted in 2021, the relationship ended in 2022 and the former partner was granted the Subclass 801 on family violence grounds in 2023. The sponsor now wants to sponsor a new partner in late 2026. In this partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence example, five years from February 2020 passed in February 2025. Regulation 1.20J(1)(b) no longer applies. The earlier sponsorship still counts toward the lifetime limit of two, so this is the sponsor's second and last sponsorship unless a waiver is later needed.

Example 2: five years will pass during processing

Consider a sponsor whose former partner lodged a Subclass 309 application in August 2021. The former partner was later granted the Subclass 100 on family violence grounds. The sponsor lodges a new Subclass 820 application with a new partner in mid 2026. In this partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence example, the five years end in August 2026. If the decision is made after that date, regulation 1.20J(1)(b) will not prevent approval. A waiver submission is still prudent in case the decision is made earlier.

Example 3: five years a long way off

Consider a sponsor whose former partner lodged a Subclass 820 application in 2024 and was granted the Subclass 820 on family violence grounds in 2025. The sponsor wants to sponsor a new partner in 2026. In this partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence example, the five years do not end until 2029. The sponsor either waits or lodges with a full submission on compelling circumstances under regulation 1.20J(2).

Example 4: this would be the third sponsorship

Consider a sponsor who sponsored a first spouse many years ago and then sponsored a second partner who was granted the Subclass 801 on family violence grounds. In this partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence example, the sponsor has already had two counted sponsorships. Regulation 1.20J(1)(a) prevents a third unless compelling circumstances are accepted under regulation 1.20J(2), even if the five years have passed.

What if the sponsor was also a victim of family violence?

A sponsor who was also a victim of family violence in the earlier relationship can raise that history, but it does not undo the former partner's grant or change the count. The Department's own family violence instruction accepts that a perpetrator of family violence can also be a victim of family violence. In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, that may be part of the sponsor's account of the earlier relationship.

The sponsor's own experience of family violence is more likely to be relevant to compelling circumstances than to the count. In 2451138 (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2252, a Subclass 309 matter was remitted where the recorded issues included that the sponsor was the victim of family violence in previous relationships. Trauma, its effect on health, and the importance of a safe and stable new relationship can all form part of the evidence of hardship. The answer on whether emotional, financial or psychological abuse can count as family violence explains the broad meaning of family violence, and the guide on partner visas and mental health conditions explains how health evidence is handled.

That history must be presented carefully. A partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence submission that reads as an attack on the former partner, or an attempt to reverse the earlier finding, is unlikely to help. The better course is to explain the sponsor's experience factually, with independent evidence such as medical or counselling records, and to connect it to the sponsor's present circumstances. Anyone who is in immediate danger should call 000.

Does the family violence finding affect the new sponsorship in other ways?

Yes, it can be relevant in other ways, although the family violence finding in the former partner's case is not a ground to refuse the new sponsorship in itself. In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence matter, the sponsor should understand the difference between what the Regulations require and what a delegate may take into account.

The sponsor character limits depend on convictions and charges

The sponsor character limits do not turn on findings made in another person's visa case. Regulation 1.20KC allows the Department to refuse to approve a sponsorship where the sponsor has been convicted of a relevant offence and has a significant criminal record in relation to it. Relevant offences include offences involving violence against a person, harassment, intimidation or stalking, and breach of an apprehended violence order or a similar order. Regulation 1.20KB deals with sponsors of applications that include a child under 18, and concerns registrable offences, including charges. The guides on partner visa sponsor relevant offences under regulation 1.20KC and a significant criminal record under regulation 1.20KD explain these rules.

A family violence finding made for the former partner's visa is not a conviction. That is one of the most important points in any partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence assessment. If the former partner's claim was judicially determined by a conviction, it is the conviction, not the visa finding, that is relevant to regulation 1.20KC. The guides on a partner visa sponsor with a domestic violence conviction, a sponsor convicted of breaching an AVO and a sponsor with an assault conviction cover those situations. Tribunal decisions in the firm's records, including 2107808 [2024] AATA 4136, Ellis [2024] AATA 3411, Naureen [2024] ARTA 468 and 2120175 [2024] AATA 540, were remitted where the recorded issues were that the sponsor had been convicted of a relevant offence, the length of the relationship, and the time since sentence.

Court orders without a conviction

A protection order, intervention order or apprehended violence order is a court order, not a conviction. It may have supported the former partner's judicially determined claim. It does not, by itself, trigger regulation 1.20KC, although a breach of such an order can be a relevant offence. The answer on whether a person can get a partner visa when there is a domestic violence order against them and the guides on partner visas with intervention orders and a partner visa domestic violence charge explain how these orders are treated.

Credibility, disclosure and the earlier file

A delegate assessing a new sponsorship may be aware of the earlier sponsorship file, including the fact that a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence grant was made to the former partner. In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the sponsor's honesty on the new forms matters a great deal. The sponsorship form asks about earlier sponsorships and nominations, and the applicant's form asks whether the sponsor has sponsored a partner before. Leaving out the earlier sponsorship, or describing its end inaccurately, can damage the sponsor's credibility and can create a public interest criterion 4020 risk for the applicant. The guides on partner visa PIC 4020 risks, the Form 40SP sponsorship form and partner visa sponsor police check requirements explain what the sponsor must provide.

If the Department intends to rely on adverse information about the sponsor in refusing the new visa, section 57 of the Migration Act generally requires particulars of that information to be given to the applicant, with an explanation of its relevance and an invitation to comment. The guides on the section 57 natural justice letter and common adverse information examples explain how to respond. Current allegations made by a former partner while the new application is being processed raise separate issues and need their own response.

Can compelling circumstances waive the limit?

Yes. Regulation 1.20J(2) allows a sponsorship to be approved despite the limits in regulation 1.20J(1) where there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor. The Department's instruction says that, as a matter of law, every case must be assessed against regulation 1.20J(2). A partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case is no exception.

Department policy gives examples of compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor:

• the applicant and the sponsor have a dependent child who is dependent on each of them;
• the death of the previous partner;
• the previous spouse abandoned the sponsor and there are children dependent on the sponsor who need care and support; and
• the new relationship is longstanding.

These examples are not exhaustive, and a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence submission can rely on other circumstances. Policy also directs attention to the nature of the hardship the sponsor would suffer if the sponsorship were not approved, and the extent of the sponsor's ties to Australia, including the hardship if the sponsor felt compelled to leave Australia to maintain the relationship. The guides on partner visa compelling reasons and waiver evidence, compelling and compassionate circumstances examples and compelling reasons and length of relationship explain how these submissions are built.

The innocent sponsor argument in a family violence context

Policy recognises claims by "innocent sponsors", who say their earlier relationship was genuine and that they were blameless in its failure. It is open to decision makers to accept this as a compelling circumstance, depending on whether the genuineness of the original relationship can be established and whether the first sponsorship was "careless", meaning made with the expectation of trying again if it failed.

In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the first part of that test may be easier to meet than the sponsor expects. As explained above, the former partner's grant required the Department to be satisfied that the relationship was genuine until it ended. The second part needs more care. A sponsor who argues blamelessness in the failure of the relationship is contradicting a family violence finding that the Department has already made. That argument is rarely persuasive, and it can damage the sponsor's credibility. A better approach is usually to focus on the sponsor's present circumstances, the strength of the new relationship and the hardship of refusal, without relitigating the former partner's claim.

Relevant Tribunal decisions

Tribunal decisions in the firm's records show the kinds of circumstances that have been raised. In Mayu (Migration) [2021] AATA 2301, a Subclass 820 matter was remitted where the recorded issues were two previous sponsorships, compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor, and that the first husband left after obtaining permanent residency. In 2451138 (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2252, a Subclass 309 matter was remitted where the recorded issues were compelling circumstances, that the sponsor was the victim of family violence in previous relationships, and family medical conditions. In SEOL (Migration) [2023] AATA 4410, a Subclass 820 matter was remitted where the recorded issues included that previous failed relationships are not themselves compelling circumstances. In 1726920 (Migration) [2020] AATA 1519, a Subclass 820 matter was remitted where the recorded issues were a sponsor of two previous successful partner applications, compelling circumstances, and separation from two previous wives.

These decisions are described only by their recorded issues. They show that a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence history does not prevent a waiver argument, but that a failed earlier relationship is not enough on its own. The guide on partner visa compelling reasons at the ART explains how the Tribunal assesses these claims.

How should a sponsor address the earlier family violence finding?

A sponsor should address the earlier family violence finding honestly, briefly and without attacking the former partner. In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence matter, the new application is about the new relationship and the sponsor's present circumstances. It is not a forum to reopen the former partner's case.

Practical guidance for sponsors:

• Disclose the earlier sponsorship fully. The Department already holds the records. Full disclosure protects credibility.
• Do not contact the former partner about the claim. Contact can be unsafe, may breach a court order, and can create new problems.
• Do not make allegations about the former partner's motives in the new application. A decision maker is unlikely to treat that as relevant, and it can colour the assessment of the sponsor.
• Address any convictions or court orders directly. Where regulation 1.20KC is engaged, the sponsor needs evidence about the offence, the sentence, the time since sentence and rehabilitation.
• Focus on the present. Evidence of the new relationship, children, health, employment, community ties and the effect of refusal carries more weight than arguments about the past.

The guides on a partner visa sponsor risk assessment before lodgement, partner visa sponsor documents and the partner visa sponsor interview explain how sponsors prepare.

What evidence supports a new sponsorship after a family violence grant?

The evidence should prove the new relationship, establish the timeline, and, where the limits apply, show compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor. In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the evidence usually includes:

• a clear statement from the sponsor setting out the earlier sponsorship, the dates, and how and when it ended, written factually;
• evidence of the new relationship across the financial, household, social and commitment aspects, using the guidance on partner visa relationship evidence and the partner visa relationship timeline;
• evidence of any child of the new relationship, or children dependent on the sponsor, using the guidance on compelling reasons and Australian citizen children;
• medical or psychological evidence where the sponsor's health is relevant to hardship;
• evidence of the sponsor's ties to Australia, such as employment, property, family and caring responsibilities;
• Australian and foreign police checks, and court documents if there are any convictions or orders; and
• Form 888 statements from people who know the sponsor and the new relationship well, prepared with the help of the guide on partner visa Form 888 and witness statements.

In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the timeline of the new relationship deserves attention. A delegate will usually look at how soon the new relationship began after the earlier one ended. A short gap is not a bar, but it needs a clear explanation. The guides on a short partner visa relationship and partner visas after divorce cover these issues.

Should the sponsor lodge now or wait?

The sponsor should lodge now only if the five years will pass before a decision is likely, or if there are compelling circumstances strong enough to support a waiver. In every partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case, the decision depends on the dates and the evidence.

For a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case inside the five years, waiting has its own costs. An onshore partner may need to apply before their current visa ends, as the guide on applying for a partner visa before visa expiry explains. An offshore partner may face a long separation. A partner visa application review before lodgement helps a sponsor choose the safest course. Where the sponsor is unsure whether the earlier sponsorship counts, the safer assumption is that it does.

Common mistakes in a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence case

The most common mistakes are assuming the family violence grant does not count, counting the five years from the wrong date, and using the new application to dispute the former partner's claim. Each one can lead to a refusal that could have been avoided.

• Assuming a disputed grant does not count. A partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence grant counts even if the sponsor denies the claim and never took part in it.
• Counting from the family violence grant. The five years start on the date the former partner's application was made, not the date of the permanent grant.
• Counting to the lodgement date. The five years are measured to the date of decision on the new sponsorship.
• Leaving the earlier sponsorship off the forms. The Department holds the records. The guides on partner visa incorrect answers found by the Department and correcting answers with Form 1023 explain what to do if an answer was wrong, and the answer on how to tell an honest mistake from a PIC 4020 issue explains the risk to the applicant.
• Confusing a finding with a conviction. Only convictions for relevant offences engage regulation 1.20KC. The guide on a partner visa sponsor with a criminal record and the answer on whether a partner visa can be granted if the sponsor has a criminal record explain the difference.
• Relitigating the former partner's case. A partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence waiver built on blaming the former partner rarely succeeds.
• Ignoring the waiver. Regulation 1.20J(2) must be considered in every case. The answer on compelling and compassionate circumstances explains what that means.

The firm's guide on complex partner visa applications explains why sponsorship history makes a case complex, and the guides on partner visa sponsorship assessment and when sponsorship approval is decided explain how the Department assesses the sponsor.

What happens if the new sponsorship is refused?

If the new sponsorship is refused, the visa must be refused. Sponsorship approval is decided as part of the visa decision under section 65 of the Migration Act, and there is no separate notice to the sponsor, even where the refusal turns on a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence history. The answers on what happens if a partner's sponsorship is refused and whether a lawyer can help with a sponsorship refusal explain the immediate effect.

A refusal of a Subclass 820, Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 visa can be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal. The application must be made within 28 days after the day the applicant is notified of the decision, or 7 days if the applicant is in immigration detention. The time limit cannot be extended. For a Subclass 820 or Subclass 309 refusal the visa applicant applies, and for a Subclass 300 refusal the sponsor applies. The ART fee for a migration review is $3,727 for fees paid on or after 1 July 2026, with a 50% reduction available for financial hardship and 50% refunded if the decision is set aside or remitted. An onshore applicant who holds a Bridging visa A continues to hold it while the review is on foot.

The Tribunal decides on the law and the facts as they stand at the time of its own decision. In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence matter, that means a five year period that ends during review counts, and new evidence of compelling circumstances can be put to the Tribunal. The guides on the partner visa ART review process, partner visa ART evidence and working out the review deadline set out the process, and the firm's pages on partner visa refusals and urgent ART visa refusal applications explain how My Migration Lawyers acts in these reviews.

How My Migration Lawyers helps a sponsor whose former partner got PR on family violence grounds

My Migration Lawyers advises Australian sponsors whose former partner was granted permanent residence under the family violence provisions and who now want to sponsor a new partner. These are complex and sensitive matters. The sponsor often has limited information about the earlier claim, the dates must be established precisely, and the history has to be presented in a way that is honest, measured and persuasive. The firm acts in many sponsorship limitation matters of this type and is well equipped to handle them.

In a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence matter, the firm starts by establishing the facts that can be established: when the former partner's application was made, what was granted and when, and whether any convictions or court orders exist. My Migration Lawyers then advises whether the earlier sponsorship engages regulation 1.20J(1)(a), regulation 1.20J(1)(b) or both, when any five year period ends, and whether the new application should be lodged now or later.

Where a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence waiver is needed, the firm prepares a submission under regulation 1.20J(2) that focuses on the sponsor's present circumstances, the new relationship, any children, the sponsor's ties to Australia and the hardship of refusal. Where convictions or orders are relevant, the firm deals with regulation 1.20KC alongside the limitation issue so that the Department sees one consistent case. The firm's partner visa lawyers also prepare the Subclass 820 visa, Subclass 309 visa or Subclass 300 visa application itself, so that disclosure, evidence and submissions align from the start.

My Migration Lawyers works with clients across Australia by video, and matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. The answer on whether there is a partner visa lawyer who handles complex cases explains how the firm approaches matters like these.

If your former partner was granted permanent residence on family violence grounds and you want to sponsor a new partner, or a partner visa sponsor previous partner family violence issue has already led to a refusal, Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers, or call 1300 040 300.