Partner Visa Sponsorship Limitation Refusal: Review Options

A partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal is a refusal of a Subclass 820, Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 visa because the Department of Home Affairs would not approve the Australian sponsor under regulation 1.20J of the Migration Regulations 1994. A partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal usually means the sponsor has sponsored a partner before, or was sponsored as a partner, too recently or too often, and the Department did not accept that compelling circumstances justified approval.

It is also a refusal that often turns on points that can be looked at again on review, for two reasons. First, the five-year period is measured to the date of the decision on the sponsorship, so the passage of time during a review can remove the problem. Second, the compelling circumstances test is broad and depends on evidence that sponsors often never gave the Department. This guide explains what regulation 1.20J limits, which earlier sponsorships count, how the five years are calculated, what compelling circumstances look like, and what review options follow a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal.

The firm's commercial page on partner visa sponsorship limitations sets out every sponsorship bar, and its broader guide on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explains them in plain terms. The complete guide to partner visas covers the visa framework.

What is a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal?

A partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal is a decision to refuse the visa because the sponsorship could not be approved under regulation 1.20J, which limits how many partner sponsorships a person can have and how soon one partner sponsorship can follow another.

Approval of the sponsorship is a time of decision criterion for the Subclass 820 partner visa under clause 820.221, the Subclass 309 partner visa under clause 309.222 and the Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa under clause 300.222. If the sponsorship is not approved, the visa must be refused. There is no separate sponsorship decision to appeal. The review is of the visa refusal, and the Tribunal decides the sponsorship question as part of that review.

Regulation 1.20J applies to Subclass 300 applications and to Subclass 309 and Subclass 820 partner applications made on or after 1 July 2009, with earlier versions applying to older applications. Department policy says the version of regulation 1.20J in force when the current visa application was made must be applied. The firm's short answers on whether a sponsor can sponsor more than one partner and on sponsoring a partner after being sponsored on a partner visa summarise the basic rules.

What does regulation 1.20J limit?

Regulation 1.20J, the rule behind every partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal, limits partner sponsorships in three ways: no more than two approved partner sponsorships in total, no new sponsorship within five years of an earlier partner sponsorship, and no sponsorship within five years of the sponsor's own partner visa application.

In Department policy terms, the three limbs are:

• Regulation 1.20J(1)(a): two sponsorships in total. At most, a person may have two approved spouse, de facto partner, interdependent partner or prospective spouse sponsorships.
• Regulation 1.20J(1)(b): five years after an earlier sponsorship. Even within the two-sponsorship limit, a sponsor who has sponsored a partner or fiancé cannot have another partner sponsorship approved until at least five years after the earlier visa application was made.
• Regulation 1.20J(1)(c): five years after being sponsored. A person who was sponsored as a spouse, de facto partner or fiancé cannot sponsor a partner until at least five years after their own visa application was made.

Regulation 1.20J(2) allows a sponsorship that fails any of these limbs to be approved if there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor. Department policy states that, as a matter of law, every case must be assessed against regulation 1.20J(2). A decision that applies the limitation without considering compelling circumstances is open to challenge.

The two-stage partner visas are counted once, not twice. A sponsorship that led to a Subclass 820 and then a Subclass 801 grant, or a Subclass 309 and then a Subclass 100 grant, is one sponsorship. The firm's guide to the partner visa two-stage process explains why. A separate limitation in regulation 1.20KA affects sponsors who hold a permanent Contributory Parent category visa, and it is dealt with later in this guide.

What happens before a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal is made?

Before a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal is made, the Department compares the sponsor's answers in the sponsorship form with its own records of earlier sponsorships and visa applications, and then invites the applicant to comment under section 57 of the Migration Act.

Department policy says that, in assessing regulation 1.20J, officers should have regard to the information the sponsor gave in the Form 40 sponsorship and to the Department's sponsorship and nomination database records. In practice, the Department often knows about an earlier sponsorship even where the sponsor did not mention it. An omission in the sponsorship form can then become a credibility issue as well as a limitation issue. The firm's guides to Form 40SP, the sponsorship form, and to the partner visa sponsorship assessment explain what the sponsor is asked.

The section 57 invitation is the last chance to put compelling circumstances to the Department before the decision. Many refusals follow a short response that argued only that the relationship is genuine. The short answers on providing new evidence in a section 57 response and on what a section 57 natural justice letter is explain the process. Where a section 57 letter about the limitation has already arrived, the response should be treated as seriously as a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal review, because the same evidence will be needed. The firm's guide to partner visa sponsorship delays explains why sponsorship issues often hold up the whole application.

Does the earlier sponsorship count towards the limit?

An earlier sponsorship counts towards the limit only if it resulted in the grant of a visa, and Department policy treats several situations that sponsors assume do not count as counting.

Department policy gives these examples:

• Earlier application refused. A sponsorship connected to a visa application that was refused does not count.
• Visa granted but the partner never travelled. The sponsorship counts. The critical factor is the visa grant.
• Fiancé visa granted but no marriage. For current applications, the sponsorship generally counts.
• Visa cancelled before the partner entered Australia. The sponsorship generally counts.
• Permanent visa granted on family violence grounds. The sponsorship counts, because the permanent visa followed the original sponsorship.
• Partner visa granted after the sponsor died. The sponsorship counts against the person who was sponsored if that person later sponsors someone else, although policy says this may be a case where compelling circumstances exist.
• The applicant was sponsored before by someone else. That is irrelevant. Regulation 1.20J looks only at the current sponsor's history.
• The sponsor was sponsored as a spouse and later sponsored a fiancé. Being sponsored is a separate limb and does not use up one of the sponsor's two sponsorships.

These rules are where many partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal cases are won or lost before compelling circumstances are even reached. A sponsor's memory of an earlier relationship is not enough. The firm's guide to partner visa previous relationship history and the short answer on applying with a new partner after a previous one explain how prior relationships are disclosed and checked.

How is the five-year period calculated in a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal?

In a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal, the five-year period runs from the date the earlier visa application was made to the date the current sponsorship is approved or refused, not to the date the current application was lodged.

Department policy explains the two calculations:

• The sponsor sponsored someone before. The period is calculated from the date the earlier visa application was made to the date of approval or refusal of the current sponsorship.
• The sponsor was sponsored before. The period is calculated from the date the sponsor's own visa application was made to the date of approval or refusal of the current sponsorship.

Because sponsorship approval is a time of decision criterion, an application lodged inside the five years can still succeed if five years have passed by the time the decision is made. Department policy gives an example of a second application lodged 4 years and 9 months after the first, decided 6 months later, where the sponsorship could be approved because five years had passed by the date of decision.

The calculation turns on application dates, not grant dates, relationship dates or separation dates. Every partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal should be checked against the actual lodgement dates of each earlier application. The firm's guide to partner visa sponsorship approval and when it is decided explains the timing point, and the short answer on hiring a lawyer where the sponsor has sponsored a partner before explains how the dates are verified.

What are compelling circumstances in a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal?

Compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor in a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal are circumstances that make it appropriate to approve the sponsorship despite regulation 1.20J, and Department policy gives examples including a dependent child of the relationship, the death of a previous partner, abandonment by a previous spouse with dependent children, and a longstanding new relationship.

The policy list, which is expressly not exhaustive, is:

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

Policy also says every aspect of the sponsor's circumstances is relevant, and identifies two general matters that may be particularly important:

• Hardship to the sponsor. The nature of the hardship or detriment the sponsor would suffer if the sponsorship were not approved.
• The sponsor's ties to Australia. The extent and importance of the sponsor's ties to Australia, and the hardship the sponsor would suffer if forced to leave Australia to maintain the relationship.

The focus is on the sponsor. A partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal is often made because the evidence put to the Department focused on the applicant's circumstances or on the genuineness of the relationship, rather than on why refusing the sponsorship would affect the sponsor in a compelling way. The firm's guides on partner visa compelling and compassionate circumstances and partner visa compelling reasons and length of relationship discuss how compelling circumstances are assessed in related contexts.

The "innocent sponsor" argument

Department policy acknowledges claims from so-called innocent sponsors, who say the earlier relationship was genuine, that they were not to blame for its breakdown, and that refusing the new sponsorship would penalise them unfairly. Policy says it is open to decision makers to accept that these circumstances are compelling, depending on whether the bona fides of the earlier relationship can be established and whether the earlier sponsorship was careless. Policy also reminds decision makers that the purpose of the limitation is to prevent misuse of the partner provisions.

In practice, an innocent sponsor argument needs documents about the earlier relationship, not just the sponsor's assertion. The short answer on what compelling and compassionate circumstances mean for a partner visa gives a general overview.

How does the contributory parent limitation differ?

The contributory parent limitation in regulation 1.20KA is a separate rule that prevents a person granted a permanent Contributory Parent category visa from sponsoring a partner or fiancé for five years from the date of that grant, if they were already in the relationship on or before the grant date.

Regulation 1.20KA was introduced on 1 July 2009 to stop couples from splitting a parent visa application and later using a partner visa for the second parent. It applies to Subclass 309, Subclass 820 and Subclass 300 applications made on or after 1 July 2009 where the sponsor was granted a Subclass 143 or Subclass 864 visa on or after that date.

Its waiver is narrower than the regulation 1.20J waiver. Under regulation 1.20KA(3), the limitation does not apply if the partner had compelling reasons, other than reasons related to financial circumstances, for not applying with the sponsor or for withdrawing from the sponsor's application. Policy gives examples such as a major family illness or other significant non-financial obligations, supported by evidence of a change in circumstances. A refusal under regulation 1.20KA is reviewed in the same way as a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal under regulation 1.20J, but the evidence must answer the narrower test.

Why does the Department refuse the waiver?

The Department usually refuses the regulation 1.20J(2) waiver in a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal because the evidence did not show circumstances affecting the sponsor that were compelling, as distinct from evidence that the new relationship is genuine.

The patterns that most often appear in decision records are:

• Genuineness treated as enough. A genuine relationship is required for every partner visa. It is not, on its own, a compelling circumstance.
• A short relationship. Where the new relationship is recent, the "longstanding relationship" example in policy does not assist.
• A pattern of sponsorships. Several sponsorships close together raise the concern the limitation was designed to address.
• No evidence about the earlier relationship. Without documents, the decision maker cannot accept that the earlier sponsorship was genuine rather than careless.
• No evidence of hardship to the sponsor. Statements that the sponsor would be "devastated" carry little weight without detail about health, children, work, family and ties to Australia.
• Wrong dates. Sometimes the Department and the couple are working from different dates for the earlier application.

Each of these is a point a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal review can address, and a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal decision record should be read line by line to find them. The firm's guide to partner visa compelling reasons not accepted explains how weak compelling circumstances claims fail, and the guide to the partner visa refusal letter explains how to read the reasons.

What review options exist after a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal?

The main review option after a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal is an application to the Administrative Review Tribunal within 28 days after notification of the refusal, or 7 days if the applicant is in immigration detention, under section 347(3) of the Migration Act.

The key procedural rules are:

• Who applies. For a Subclass 820 refusal, the visa applicant applies and must be in Australia when applying. For a Subclass 309 refusal, the visa applicant applies under regulation 4.02(5)(raa), according to current Department instruction. For a Subclass 300 refusal, the sponsor applies.
• No extension. The review period cannot be extended.
• Fee. The ART fee is AUD 3,727 for fees paid on or after 1 July 2026. It can be reduced by 50% for financial hardship, and 50% is refunded if the decision is set aside, varied or remitted.
• Bridging visa. An onshore applicant's Bridging visa A continues during the review and ceases 35 days after the Tribunal's decision is notified, under clause 010.511.

The Tribunal can exercise all the powers of the original decision maker, including deciding afresh whether regulation 1.20J is met and whether compelling circumstances exist. If it finds in the applicant's favour, it will usually remit the application to the Department with a direction that the sponsorship criterion is taken to be met. The firm's short answer on challenging a refusal involving sponsorship limitations, its guide to the partner visa ART review process and its guide to partner visa ART fees explain the process. The firm's partner visa refusal lawyers and urgent ART visa refusal applications pages deal with refusals where time is short.

What happens to the applicant after a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal?

After a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal, an onshore Subclass 820 applicant's Bridging visa A continues for 35 days after notification of the refusal, or, if review is sought, until 35 days after the Tribunal's decision is notified.

That rule, in clause 010.511, is the reason the review deadline should never be missed. An onshore applicant who does not apply for review becomes unlawful when the Bridging visa A ceases unless another visa is held. During the review, work rights usually continue on the same conditions as before. Travel overseas is risky because a Bridging visa A does not allow re-entry, and the applicant must be in Australia when the review application is made.

An offshore Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 applicant has no bridging visa issue, but should not travel to Australia on a visitor visa expecting to remain while the review is decided. The firm's guides to bridging visas after a partner visa refusal, working after a partner visa refusal and a partner visa refused onshore, and the short answers on what happens to a bridging visa if the partner visa is refused and on travelling while a refusal is under review, explain the position in detail.

How can time passing during review change the outcome?

Time passing during review can change the outcome of a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal because the Tribunal decides the sponsorship at the date of its own decision, and if five years have passed since the relevant earlier application by then, the five-year limb may no longer apply.

This follows from two rules. Sponsorship approval is a time of decision criterion, and Department policy measures the five-year period to the date of approval or refusal of the current sponsorship. On review, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the decision maker and decides at the date of its own decision. The Tribunal decision in Rogers (Migration) [2020] AATA 4743 illustrates the point: 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 to the Department.

Three cautions apply to a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal review that relies on time:

• The two-sponsorship limit does not expire. Time only helps with the five-year limbs. A sponsor who has already had two approved partner sponsorships still needs compelling circumstances.
• Every other criterion remains. The Tribunal will still consider whether the relationship is genuine and continuing and whether other criteria are met.
• The review must be valid. A late or incorrectly lodged review gives no benefit from the passage of time.

Where the five-year date is close, a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal review may be the most efficient route, because the existing application is preserved and no new visa application charge is paid. The guide to partner visa appeal versus reapplication compares the options.

What evidence supports a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal review?

Evidence of compelling circumstances in a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal review should show, with documents, how refusing the sponsorship would affect the sponsor, and it should address each of the policy examples that apply as well as the sponsor's wider circumstances.

Children

• birth certificates for any child of the relationship;
• evidence of the child's dependence on both parents, such as care arrangements, schooling and medical records;
• for children from the sponsor's earlier relationship, evidence of their dependence on the sponsor, custody or parenting arrangements and the support the applicant provides; and
• evidence of pregnancy where a child is expected.

The earlier relationship

• evidence that the earlier relationship was genuine, such as joint documents, photographs and statements;
• evidence of how and when it ended, including separation, divorce or death certificates;
• any evidence that the sponsor was abandoned or experienced family violence; and
• the dates of every earlier visa application and grant.

The current relationship

• evidence of the length of the relationship, including any period before the current application was lodged;
• current evidence across the financial, household, social and commitment aspects; and
• Form 888 witness statements from people who know the couple.

The sponsor's circumstances

• medical evidence about the sponsor's physical or mental health;
• evidence of the sponsor's family, work, property and community ties in Australia;
• evidence of the hardship the sponsor would face if forced to relocate to keep the relationship; and
• the sponsor's own statement explaining these matters in their own words.

The sponsor's account is the sponsor's own. My Migration Lawyers presents it in the form the law requires, and the sponsor reviews and corrects the statement before it is lodged. The firm's guides to partner visa ART evidence, child dependency evidence, partner visa compelling reasons and Australian citizen children and the short answer on organising evidence to address every refusal reason explain how such material is assembled.

How should the sponsor explain an earlier relationship?

The sponsor should explain an earlier relationship accurately and without blame, with documents that show it was genuine and how it ended, because the Tribunal is assessing whether the earlier sponsorship was a genuine relationship that failed or a careless use of the partner provisions.

A sponsor who describes a former partner only as someone who "used" them for a visa, without evidence, often weakens the case. The Tribunal may ask why the sponsor then sponsored again within a short period. Where the former partner did leave soon after a visa grant, that can be relevant, but it should be presented through documents such as dates of separation, communications and any family violence evidence, not through general accusations.

Consistency matters. The sponsor's account in the sponsorship form, in any comments to the Department and in evidence at the hearing should match. Where something was wrongly stated earlier, it should be corrected openly. The firm's guides to partner visa previous relationship history, preparing for a partner visa ART hearing and the short answer on what happens at a Tribunal hearing for a partner visa explain what the Member is likely to ask in a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal review.

Published Tribunal decisions on partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal reviews

Published Tribunal decisions show that the compelling circumstances test and the timing rule are both genuinely open on review. Each case turns on its own facts, and these examples are described only by the issues recorded in each decision:

• In Mayu (Migration) [2021] AATA 2301, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues recorded were sponsorship limitation, two previous sponsorships, compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor, and that the sponsor's first husband left after obtaining permanent residency. The Tribunal remitted the matter.
• In 2004843 (Migration) [2023] AATA 4514, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues recorded were the sponsorship limitation requirement, compelling circumstances, sponsorship permission less than five years after a partner visa application, and a child born of the relationship. The Tribunal remitted the matter.
• In SEOL (Migration) [2023] AATA 4410, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues recorded were sponsorship limitation, two previous sponsorships, compelling circumstances to waive the requirements, and that previous failed relationships were not themselves compelling circumstances. The Tribunal remitted the matter.
• In ZHANG (Migration) [2024] ARTA 113, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues recorded were the sponsorship limitation requirement, compelling circumstances, significant mental and physical health issues and a long-standing dependent relationship. The Tribunal remitted the matter.

The Rogers decision, discussed above, concerns the five-year period elapsing during review. These decisions are not predictions about any other partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal. They show that the Tribunal looks at the sponsor's whole situation, including children, health, the history of earlier relationships and the length of the current relationship. The firm's guide to partner visa compelling reasons at the ART and its guide to ART appeal chances explain how the Tribunal approaches these questions.

Should the couple seek review or wait and lodge a new application?

Review is usually the stronger first step after a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal, because it preserves the existing application and the time of decision rule works in the couple's favour, but a new application can be the better course in some offshore cases.

The comparison turns on several points:

• Cost. The partner visa application charge for most applicants is AUD 11,710 for the combined Subclass 820 and 801, or Subclass 309 and 100, at the time of writing. A review costs the ART fee of AUD 3,727 for fees paid on or after 1 July 2026, with 50% refunded on a remittal.
• Onshore restrictions. An applicant in Australia whose visa has been refused may be barred by section 48 from making certain further applications onshore, and may face the Schedule 3 criteria. The firm's Schedule 3 waivers page explains those criteria.
• The two-sponsorship limit. A new application does not avoid the two-sponsorship limit. The sponsor still needs compelling circumstances.
• Offshore applicants. A Subclass 309 applicant outside Australia does not face section 48. A fresh application lodged after the five-year date may avoid the limitation entirely, although the visa application charge is paid again and processing starts again.

The guides to reapplying for a partner visa after refusal and partner visa appeal versus reapplication, and the short answer on whether to seek review or lodge a new partner visa application, set out the decision in more detail. The firm's guide to partner visa cost explains the charges.

What mistakes undermine a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal review?

The mistakes that most often undermine a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal review are relying only on the genuineness of the relationship, failing to check the dates, and missing the review deadline in the belief that time will solve the problem.

• Arguing only that the relationship is genuine. The Tribunal needs compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor, or a five-year period that has expired.
• Not checking whether the earlier sponsorship counts. An earlier sponsorship linked to a refused application does not count.
• Using the wrong dates. The calculation runs from the date the earlier application was made, not the date of grant or separation.
• Letting the review deadline pass. The benefit of time passing during review is only available if a valid review is on foot.
• Attacking the former partner without evidence. Unsupported accusations can damage credibility.
• Forgetting the sponsor's health and ties. Hardship to the sponsor and ties to Australia are central to the policy test.

The guides to partner visa appeal tips and to the partner visa appeal deadline explain how these errors are avoided.

Can a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal be challenged in court?

A partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal can be challenged in court only by judicial review, which is limited to legal error and is usually considered after the Tribunal has decided.

Examples of possible legal error in a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal include failing to consider the waiver in regulation 1.20J(2) at all, applying the wrong version of regulation 1.20J for the date the application was made, counting an earlier sponsorship that did not lead to a visa grant, or measuring the five years to the wrong date. Judicial review does not allow the court to decide for itself whether circumstances are compelling. If the court finds an error, the matter usually goes back to the Tribunal to be decided again.

Strict time limits apply to judicial review, and an onshore applicant's bridging visa position must be managed at the same time. The firm's judicial review page, its guide to partner visa judicial review and the short answers on the difference between Tribunal review and judicial review and on options if the Tribunal upholds a refusal explain the process.

How My Migration Lawyers helps with a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex partner visa refusals, acts in many matters where a sponsor's previous sponsorships or own partner visa history led to the sponsorship not being approved, and is capable of handling a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal from the date calculation through to the Tribunal hearing. The firm's Principal Lawyer is Weiwei Zhang, and the firm's approach is explained on the about My Migration Lawyers page.

On a partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal, the firm:

• establishes the lodgement and grant dates of every earlier sponsorship and of the sponsor's own partner visa application, using the sponsor's records and Department material;
• tests whether each earlier sponsorship actually counts under regulation 1.20J, including refused applications, two-stage visas and fiancé sponsorships;
• calculates when the five-year period ends and whether it will have passed by the likely date of the Tribunal's decision;
• checks whether the decision maker properly considered regulation 1.20J(2), or regulation 1.20KA(3) for a contributory parent sponsor;
• identifies the correct review applicant, calculates the deadline and lodges the review with the fee or a hardship reduction request;
• prepares the compelling circumstances submission focused on the sponsor, covering children, the earlier relationship, health, hardship and ties to Australia;
• presents the sponsor's and the applicant's own accounts, which each of them reviews and corrects, together with Form 888 statements and supporting documents;
• prepares the sponsor for the hearing, including questions about earlier relationships; and
• advises on the choice between review and a new application, and on next steps after the Tribunal decides.

The firm acts for sponsors and applicants across Australia, including through its partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra and Parramatta. The wider visa refusals page and the firm's Gold Coast and Hobart partner visa lawyers pages explain related work. Sponsors can also read the short answer on getting a lawyer after a sponsorship refusal.

A partner visa sponsorship limitation refusal must be taken to the Tribunal within a deadline that cannot be extended. Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers as soon as the refusal arrives, or call 1300 040 300.