Partner Visa Unlawful Work History

A partner visa unlawful work history is one of the most common problems that couples are afraid to raise. Many applicants worked more hours than their student visa allowed, worked on a visitor visa, or kept working after their visa ended. A partner visa unlawful work issue does not, by itself, mean that a partner visa will be refused. What matters is how the past work affects the legal criteria, and how honestly and accurately it is disclosed.

This guide explains how the Department of Home Affairs and the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) approach a partner visa unlawful work history. It covers what counts as unlawful work, the visa conditions most often breached, how Schedule 3 and PIC 4020 apply, the risk of visa cancellation, what must be disclosed in the application and in Form 80, and how to manage work rights while the application is processed.

This article is about past work in breach of visa rules. It is not the main guide to applying without a substantive visa. That topic is covered in our articles on Schedule 3 criteria when you are unlawful and the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver. For the overview of every partner visa subclass, read our complete guide to partner visas in Australia.

What is a partner visa unlawful work issue?

A partner visa unlawful work issue arises when an applicant for a Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309 or Subclass 100 visa has, at some point, worked in Australia without the legal right to do so. The work may have happened years before the relationship began, or it may still be happening at the time of application.

There are two broad situations. The first is work done while the person held no visa at all, for example after a student or visitor visa expired. The second is work done while the person held a visa, but in breach of a condition on that visa that prohibited or limited work. Both situations create a partner visa unlawful work history, but they raise different legal questions.

The ordinary criteria for each subclass still apply. They are set out in our guides to the Subclass 820 partner visa and to the 820 visa requirements, documents and application steps.

The partner visa itself does not contain a criterion that says "the applicant must never have worked unlawfully". Instead, a partner visa unlawful work history becomes relevant through other criteria. The most important are:

• the Schedule 3 criteria, for onshore applicants who do not hold a substantive visa when they apply;
• PIC 4020, the integrity criterion, which deals with false or misleading information and bogus documents;
• the character requirements, where unlawful work is connected to criminal conduct or convictions; and
• the power to cancel a visa the applicant currently holds, where a condition on that visa has been breached.

Understanding which of these applies is the first step in any partner visa unlawful work matter. The answer depends on the applicant's visa history, where they are now, what visa they hold today and what they have already told the Department in earlier applications.

Does unlawful work stop you getting a partner visa?

No. A partner visa unlawful work history is not an automatic ground for refusing a partner visa. Many people who once worked in breach of their visa conditions are later granted partner visas. The past work must, however, be dealt with correctly.

The real risks in a partner visa unlawful work case usually come from three places. The first is Schedule 3, where an onshore applicant without a substantive visa must generally show that they substantially complied with the conditions of their last visa, unless there are compelling reasons not to apply that requirement. The second is PIC 4020, where an applicant who gives false or misleading information about their work or visa compliance can be refused even if the work itself would not have been fatal. The third is cancellation of a visa the applicant still holds.

A partner visa unlawful work problem that is disclosed, explained and supported by evidence is usually far more manageable than one that is concealed and later discovered. The law gives decision makers room to weigh compelling reasons and compassionate circumstances, particularly where the Australian partner and any Australian citizen children would be affected. It gives much less room where the applicant has not told the truth.

The couple must still prove the relationship in the usual way. Our 820 partner visa evidence checklist explains the documents usually relied on, and de facto couples must still meet the rules explained in our guide to the de facto partner visa and the 12-month rule.

If you are unsure whether your situation is serious, our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to prepare before you seek advice.

What counts as unlawful work in Australia?

Unlawful work in Australia is work performed by a non-citizen who either holds no visa, or holds a visa whose conditions prohibit or limit the work that was done. The concept of "work" is defined broadly, and many applicants are surprised by what it includes.

The definition of work

Regulation 1.03 of the Migration Regulations 1994 defines work as an activity that, in Australia, normally attracts remuneration. The test is not whether the person was actually paid. The test is whether the activity is the kind of activity that would normally be paid. Helping in a family business, working for cash, working for food and accommodation, or doing trial shifts can all be work under this definition.

Departmental policy recognises that genuine short term volunteering for a not-for-profit organisation may not be work, if the role is not one that would normally attract remuneration. A role such as cleaning or kitchen work, even unpaid, is likely to be treated as work because it is normally paid. Each partner visa unlawful work case therefore starts with an honest description of what the applicant actually did.

Working without any visa

A person whose visa has ceased and who has not been granted another visa is an unlawful non-citizen. An unlawful non-citizen has no permission to work at all. Any work done during a period of unlawfulness is unlawful work, regardless of hours or the type of job. This is the most serious form of a partner visa unlawful work history, because it usually sits alongside a period of unlawful stay.

Working in breach of a visa condition

A person who holds a visa may still work unlawfully if the visa carries a condition that prohibits or restricts work. Working on a visitor visa with condition 8101, working more than the permitted hours on a student visa, or working for an employer other than a sponsoring employer are all examples. In each case the person was lawful, in the sense that they held a visa, but the work breached a condition of that visa.

The difference matters. A breach of condition is assessed against the conditions of the visa held at the time. It is relevant to cancellation of that visa, and to the "substantial compliance" question in Schedule 3. Work done without any visa is relevant to the period of unlawfulness itself.

Common visa conditions behind a partner visa unlawful work history

Most partner visa unlawful work histories involve one of a small group of visa conditions in Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994. The exact wording of each condition, and the limits it sets, should be checked against the visa grant notice that the applicant actually received, because conditions and limits have changed over time.

Condition 8101: no work

Condition 8101 provides that the holder must not engage in work in Australia. It is imposed on many visitor visas, including the Tourist and Sponsored Family streams of the Subclass 600 visa. It is also commonly imposed on Bridging Visa C and Bridging Visa E. Any work done while a visa with condition 8101 was in effect is a breach. Couples who met while the applicant was a visitor often discover a partner visa unlawful work issue from this condition. Our guide on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa in Australia explains the other risks for visitors.

Conditions 8104 and 8105: limited work

Conditions 8104 and 8105 limit, rather than prohibit, work. Condition 8105 is the work condition generally attached to student visas, and it limits the hours a student may work while their course is in session. The permitted hours have changed several times, so the limit that applied to a particular student must be read from the conditions in force at the time of the work. Working beyond that limit is one of the most common sources of a partner visa unlawful work history, particularly for applicants who studied in Australia before meeting their partner.

Condition 8107 and sponsored work conditions

Condition 8107 and related conditions apply to many employer sponsored and skilled work visas. In general terms, they require the holder to work only for the sponsoring employer, or only in the nominated occupation, and to stop work or find a new sponsor within a set period if the employment ends. Working for a different employer, or in a different occupation, can be a breach.

Condition 8547 and working holiday conditions

Condition 8547 applies to working holiday visas and generally limits how long the holder may work for one employer, unless permission has been given or an exception applies. Breaches of this condition are usually less serious in practice, but they still form part of a partner visa unlawful work history and must be answered accurately.

Conditions on bridging visas

Bridging visas often carry work conditions of their own. A person on a Bridging Visa C or Bridging Visa E with condition 8101 must not work unless a new bridging visa is granted without that condition, usually on the basis of a compelling need to work. Our article on bridging visas in Australia explains the main types, and our guide to the Bridging Visa B covers travel during processing.

How the Department finds out about unlawful work

The Department may already know about a partner visa unlawful work history before the applicant says anything. Applicants should assume that their past work can be identified.

Information can come from many sources. The Department holds the applicant's full visa history, including every grant notice and every set of conditions. Employers may have checked the applicant's work rights through the Department's online visa checking service. Compliance activity at workplaces can identify workers. Tax, superannuation and payroll records can show employment during periods when the person had no work rights. Earlier visa applications may contain statements about employment. The partner visa application itself, and any Form 80 personal particulars form, will ask for detailed employment history.

The practical consequence is simple. A partner visa unlawful work history should never be approached on the basis that the Department will not find out. The safe approach is to identify every period of work, compare it with the visa held at the time, and decide with legal advice how the history is to be presented accurately.

For couples still deciding whether they need help, our article on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa explains the cases where advice matters most. Our overview of what an immigration lawyer in Australia does explains the wider role.

Which partner visa criteria does unlawful work affect?

A partner visa unlawful work history affects different criteria depending on where the applicant is, what visa they hold, and what they have said in earlier applications. The relationship criteria themselves are not changed by unlawful work. The couple must still prove a genuine and continuing relationship through the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment, as explained in our guide to partner visa evidence.

The criteria that a partner visa unlawful work history can engage are, in summary:

• Schedule 3 (criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004). This applies to an onshore Subclass 820 applicant who did not hold a substantive visa when applying. Criteria 3003 and 3004 ask whether the applicant substantially complied with the conditions of their last visa.
• PIC 4020. This applies to all partner visa applicants. It is engaged by false or misleading information about work, income or visa compliance, in the current or an earlier application.
• Character under section 501. This applies to all partner visa applicants. It is engaged where the work is linked to criminal conduct or convictions.
• Cancellation under section 116. This applies to applicants who still hold a visa whose conditions were breached. Breach of a visa condition is a ground for cancellation.

Each of these is explained below. A partner visa unlawful work matter can involve one of them or several at once.

Schedule 3 and a partner visa unlawful work history

Schedule 3 is where a partner visa unlawful work history most often has a direct legal effect for onshore applicants. An applicant who applies for a Subclass 820 visa in Australia without holding a substantive visa must generally satisfy the Schedule 3 criteria, unless the decision maker is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying them.

The Department's procedural guidance explains that criteria 3003(e) and 3004(e) require the decision maker to be satisfied that the applicant complied substantially with the conditions that applied to their last visa, including any later bridging visa. That is the link between unlawful work and Schedule 3. A student who worked well beyond the hours allowed, or a visitor who worked full time in breach of condition 8101, may not be able to show substantial compliance with the conditions of that visa.

Substantial compliance does not mean perfect compliance. The Department's policy refers to a separate guidance document on assessing substantial compliance with visa conditions, and the assessment looks at the nature, extent and seriousness of any breach. A small breach on one occasion is treated differently from a long pattern of work in breach of a no-work condition. Each partner visa unlawful work history must therefore be described accurately, with dates, hours and employers, so that the substantial compliance question can be assessed properly.

The compelling reasons waiver

For most onshore applicants without a substantive visa, the real issue is not whether criteria 3003 and 3004 are met, but whether the decision maker should waive them for compelling reasons. Compelling reasons are assessed at the time the application is made. They commonly focus on the length and strength of the relationship, Australian citizen children, the health or circumstances of the Australian partner, and the hardship that would follow if the applicant had to leave Australia and apply offshore.

A partner visa unlawful work history is one of the circumstances that a decision maker weighs in deciding whether to waive Schedule 3. It does not prevent a waiver, but it can count against the applicant, particularly where the work was extensive and deliberate. It can also be explained. Applicants who worked because they could not otherwise support themselves, who were exploited by an employer, or who misunderstood their conditions, should explain those circumstances honestly.

The Tribunal has considered an applicant's working life in this context. In Puru (Migration) [2018] AATA 3444, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues reported included the Schedule 3 criteria, compelling reasons, previous convictions and the applicant's working life. In Gurung (Migration) [2020] AATA 5380, another Subclass 820 matter, the issues included that the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application, compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria, and a genuine and continuing spouse relationship. These cases show that the Tribunal looks at the whole of the applicant's circumstances, not at one fact in isolation.

Our Schedule 3 waiver service page explains how My Migration Lawyers prepares these submissions. If the applicant has held no substantive visa since an earlier refusal, our article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains how section 48 interacts with Schedule 3.

Why lodging while a substantive visa is held matters

Schedule 3 is generally engaged only where the applicant did not hold a substantive visa when the onshore application was made. An applicant who still holds a substantive visa, such as a student visa, a work visa or a visitor visa without condition 8503, can usually lodge a Subclass 820 application without facing Schedule 3 at all. This is one reason why timing is so important in a partner visa unlawful work case. A couple who wait until the visa expires may convert a manageable partner visa unlawful work history into a Schedule 3 problem.

Holding a visitor visa does not always mean an onshore application can be made. Many visitor visas carry condition 8503, which generally prevents a valid application unless the condition is waived. Our article on whether you can apply for a Subclass 820 visa with a no further stay condition (8503) explains that rule.

PIC 4020: when a partner visa unlawful work history becomes an integrity problem

PIC 4020 is often a larger risk than the unlawful work itself. PIC 4020 is the integrity criterion in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994. It allows a visa to be refused where the applicant has given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, in the current application or in a visa application made in a period before it.

A partner visa unlawful work history engages PIC 4020 when the applicant has not told the truth about it. Common examples include:

• an earlier student visa application, or a later student visa extension, which stated that the applicant was not working, or was working within the permitted hours, when that was not true;
• a visitor visa application which stated that the applicant would not work in Australia, followed by work during the visit;
• employment details in the partner visa application, or in Form 80, which leave out an employer or change the dates of a job to hide a breach; and
• documents such as payslips, employment letters or bank records that do not match the account given.

The problem is that once false information has been given, the issue is no longer simply a partner visa unlawful work question. It becomes a question of honesty, and honesty is central to a partner visa, which depends heavily on the credibility of the couple's own account.

Waiver of PIC 4020

PIC 4020 contains a waiver. In general terms, certain parts of the criterion may be waived where there are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. In a partner visa case, the interests of the Australian partner and any Australian citizen children are often central to that argument.

The Tribunal database contains partner visa decisions where PIC 4020 was in issue. In HASSAN (Migration) [2019] AATA 6523, a Subclass 300 matter, the issues reported were that the applicant had given false or misleading information, that the requirements of PIC 4020 were waived, and that a dependent child had been born of the relationship. In PHAM (Migration) [2019] AATA 6298, a Subclass 309 matter, the issues included a breach of PIC 4020 through false and misleading information, a genuine and continuing relationship and compassionate circumstances. In Fajloun (Migration) [2023] AATA 2639, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues included an Australian citizen sponsor and children, compassionate circumstances affecting the interests of Australian citizens, and that the applicant did not meet PIC 4020.

Employment details themselves can be the subject of a PIC 4020 concern. In Soboh (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1955, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues reported included misleading information, the employment details of a secondary applicant and income from casual employment. The lesson for any partner visa unlawful work case is that employment information must be accurate and consistent across every application.

A waiver is never guaranteed and must be argued properly with evidence. The far better course is to avoid a PIC 4020 problem by giving complete and accurate information from the start. Our article on responding to a section 56 request for more information explains how the Department asks for further details during processing.

Is unlawful work a character issue for a partner visa?

Unlawful work, on its own, does not usually cause an applicant to fail the character test. Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 sets out the character test. A person may fail it because of a substantial criminal record, certain criminal conduct or associations, or the decision maker's view of the risk of future conduct or of the person's past and present general conduct. A partner visa unlawful work history becomes a character issue mainly where it is connected to criminal conduct.

Examples include work obtained using false identity documents, work connected to criminal activity, or convictions for offences arising from the work. Where any charge or conviction exists, it must be disclosed, and police certificates will usually reveal it. In Puru (Migration) [2018] AATA 3444, previous convictions were reported among the issues alongside the applicant's working life, which shows that the Tribunal may consider both together.

Where the character test is engaged, the analysis becomes more complex and includes the interests of the Australian partner and any children. Our visa cancellations page explains how My Migration Lawyers approaches character matters.

Can my current visa be cancelled for unlawful work?

Yes. Section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 allows the Minister to cancel a visa if, among other grounds, the holder has not complied with a condition of the visa. Working in breach of condition 8101, 8105, 8107 or any other work condition on a visa the applicant still holds is therefore a potential ground for cancellation of that visa.

Cancellation is a process, not an automatic result. In most cases the Department must first give the visa holder a notice of intention to consider cancellation and an opportunity to respond. The decision maker then considers the response and the circumstances of the case. A partner visa unlawful work issue involving a current visa needs careful planning, because the act of disclosing the breach in the partner visa application may itself bring the breach to the Department's attention.

The consequences of cancellation can be significant. A person whose visa is cancelled in Australia may become unlawful, or may hold only a bridging visa, and section 48 may limit the visas they can apply for. If the partner visa has not yet been lodged, the applicant may then face the Schedule 3 criteria. This is why a partner visa unlawful work history involving a current visa should be assessed before anything is lodged. Where a notice has already been received, our visa cancellations team acts in the response, and the visa refusals page explains what happens if a visa is refused instead.

Exclusion periods and partner visas

Exclusion periods are another concern that applicants often raise. PIC 4013 and PIC 4014 can prevent the grant of some visas for a period after a visa has been cancelled, or after a person has left Australia as an unlawful non-citizen or on certain bridging visas. The Department's own procedural guidance notes, as an example, that PIC 4013 and PIC 4014 are criteria for a working holiday visa but are not criteria for a Subclass 309 partner visa.

That is helpful for many partner visa applicants. It does not mean that past cancellations or unlawful departures are irrelevant. They remain part of the visa history, they must be disclosed, and they may be relevant to credibility, to PIC 4020 and to Schedule 3. Any visa the applicant uses to visit Australia during processing, such as a visitor visa, may also have its own exclusion criteria. A partner visa unlawful work history should therefore always be read together with the applicant's full departure and cancellation history.

Partner visa unlawful work history and the Australian partner

A partner visa unlawful work history belongs to the applicant, but the Australian partner is affected by it too. The sponsor signs a sponsorship and gives information about the relationship. If the sponsor's account of the applicant's work, income or living arrangements is inconsistent with the applicant's account, the inconsistency can damage the credibility of both.

The sponsor should know about the applicant's partner visa unlawful work history before the application is prepared, so that the couple's accounts are consistent and accurate. Where the couple worked together, for example in the sponsor's business, the sponsor's own records will also be relevant. The sponsorship obligations and the limits on sponsorship are explained on our partner visa sponsorship limitations page.

Friends and family who give Form 888 supporting statements speak to the relationship, not to the applicant's work history. Their statements should describe what they genuinely know about the couple. Our article on Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explains what makes those statements useful.

What should you disclose about unlawful work in a partner visa application?

You should disclose your partner visa unlawful work history fully and accurately wherever the application, Form 80 or a request from the Department asks for it. The partner visa application asks detailed questions about visa history, employment and compliance with visa conditions. Each answer must be true and complete.

Disclosure does not mean writing a confession that goes beyond the question. It means answering every question that is asked, accurately, and giving a short, truthful explanation where the answer needs context. The lawyer's role is to identify every question that touches the partner visa unlawful work history, to check the answers against the applicant's records and earlier applications, and to present the explanation in the form the law requires.

Questions in the partner visa application

The online partner visa application in ImmiAccount includes questions about the applicant's immigration history, including previous visas, refusals, cancellations and compliance with visa conditions. Our guide on how to create an ImmiAccount explains the account both partners use. Where a question asks whether the applicant has ever breached a visa condition, or has been in Australia without a valid visa, a partner visa unlawful work history may require a "yes" answer and an explanation.

Form 80 and employment history

The Department often asks partner visa applicants to complete Form 80, the personal particulars form. Form 80 asks for a detailed history of addresses, travel and employment. In a partner visa unlawful work matter, the employment section is critical. Every employer should be listed with accurate dates, even where the work was in breach of a visa condition. Leaving an employer out, or changing dates to fit inside a permitted period, creates a PIC 4020 risk that can be far more serious than the original breach.

Form 80 answers are also compared with earlier visa applications. If a previous application listed one employment history and Form 80 lists another, the difference will need an explanation. Our partner visa document checklist explains where Form 80 fits among the other documents.

Relationship evidence and income from unlawful work

Couples often use bank statements, payslips and tax records to prove the financial aspects of the relationship. In a partner visa unlawful work case, those documents may themselves show work during periods when the applicant had no right to work. That is not a reason to leave out genuine relationship evidence, and it is certainly not a reason to alter documents. It is a reason to review the financial evidence before lodgement, so that the account given in the relationship statement is consistent with the documents.

The relationship statement is the couple's own account. It should not try to hide the partner visa unlawful work history, but it also does not need to be built around it. The statement deals with the relationship. The unlawful work is addressed in the answers to the specific questions and, where necessary, in a separate legal submission. Our guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explains how the financial evidence is usually presented.

Why honest disclosure is the safest partner visa unlawful work strategy

Honest disclosure is the safest strategy in every partner visa unlawful work case, because the consequences of concealment are worse than the consequences of the breach. A breach of a work condition is assessed on its facts. A false answer about that breach brings in PIC 4020 and damages the credibility of the whole application, including the couple's account of their relationship.

Honest disclosure also allows the applicant to explain the circumstances. Many partner visa unlawful work histories have an explanation that matters to the decision maker:

• the applicant misunderstood the hours limit or how it was calculated;
• an employer told the applicant the work was lawful, or pressured them to work more hours;
• the applicant was exploited, underpaid or had their wages withheld;
• the applicant worked to support themselves after a sponsor, education provider or family member failed to provide the support expected; or
• the work was brief, long ago, and followed by years of compliance.

These explanations do not erase the breach. They are relevant to substantial compliance, to compelling reasons under Schedule 3, and to the overall assessment of the applicant. They can only be relied on if the breach is disclosed.

Applicants sometimes ask whether they should simply not mention a partner visa unlawful work history that the Department may not know about. The answer is no. The Department may already hold the information, and a false or incomplete answer can lead to refusal under PIC 4020, which in turn can have consequences for future applications. Our article on why partner visas get refused sets out how credibility problems lead to refusal.

Can you work while your partner visa is being processed?

It depends on the bridging visa you hold. Continuing to work unlawfully during processing is the most avoidable way to make a partner visa unlawful work history worse, because a new breach cannot be explained as a past mistake.

Applicants who hold a Bridging Visa A

An applicant who lodges an onshore Subclass 820 application while holding a substantive visa is generally granted a Bridging Visa A. Under a legislative instrument made by the Minister, a Bridging Visa A granted to a Subclass 820 or Subclass 801 applicant in connection with the partner visa application generally carries no conditions, which means the holder can work once that bridging visa is in effect. The bridging visa usually comes into effect when the applicant's substantive visa ends. Until then, the conditions of the substantive visa continue to apply. Our articles on the Bridging Visa A and on working while waiting for a Subclass 820 visa explain the timing.

Applicants who hold a Bridging Visa C or Bridging Visa E

An applicant who lodges without holding a substantive visa will usually be granted a Bridging Visa C, or may hold a Bridging Visa E. These bridging visas often carry condition 8101, which prohibits work. An applicant with condition 8101 must not work. Where the applicant has a compelling need to work, as defined in regulation 1.08, they may apply for a further bridging visa without the work condition. Until that further bridging visa is granted, any work is a new breach that adds to the partner visa unlawful work history.

Offshore applicants visiting Australia

An applicant for the offshore Subclass 309 who visits Australia during processing on a visitor visa is usually subject to condition 8101 and must not work during the visit. Work during a visit can also be relevant to the visitor visa itself and to any later application. Our page on the Subclass 309 partner visa explains the offshore process.

Partner visa unlawful work history and the Subclass 309 offshore visa

A partner visa unlawful work history does not disappear because the applicant applies from outside Australia. The Schedule 3 criteria do not apply to the offshore Subclass 309, but the past work remains part of the visa history. PIC 4020 applies to the Subclass 309 and Subclass 100, and the application asks the same questions about earlier visas, compliance and employment.

For some couples, an offshore application is a realistic alternative where an onshore Subclass 820 application would face a difficult Schedule 3 assessment. That choice depends on the full circumstances, including the hardship of separation, children, the applicant's ability to travel and the risk factors attached to the applicant's departure. It is a strategic decision that should be made with advice, not by default. Our guide to the Subclass 820 onshore partner visa and our Subclass 820 service page explain the onshore pathway for comparison.

What happens if the Department raises unlawful work during processing?

The Department will usually give the applicant a chance to respond before refusing on the basis of adverse information. In a partner visa unlawful work case, this commonly happens through a request for more information under section 56 of the Migration Act 1958, or through an invitation to comment on adverse information under section 57.

A section 57 letter is a critical moment. It sets out the information the Department may rely on and gives a short period to respond. The response should address the information directly, correct any error, explain the circumstances, and, where PIC 4020 or Schedule 3 is engaged, make the legal argument for a waiver with supporting evidence. Our article on the S57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explains the process.

Applicants who lodged their own application and now realise that their partner visa unlawful work history was not dealt with correctly should seek advice before responding. Our articles on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own visa application and on getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer explain how a lawyer can step in during processing. A lawyer is appointed to an existing application using Form 956. Where an earlier answer was incorrect, it should be corrected in writing using the Department's process for notifying incorrect answers. Later changes in circumstances are notified using Form 1022.

Refusal and review in a partner visa unlawful work case

If a partner visa is refused because of Schedule 3, PIC 4020 or another criterion connected to a partner visa unlawful work history, review may be available in the Administrative Review Tribunal. The deadline for applying for review is short and strictly applied, so the refusal letter should be read immediately and advice sought at once.

The Tribunal reviews the decision afresh. It can consider new evidence, including updated evidence of the relationship, evidence about the circumstances of the unlawful work and evidence of compelling or compassionate circumstances. Our partner visa refusals page, our guide to partner visa appeal options, our article on what to expect at an ART review and our guide to the role of a visa appeal lawyer explain the review process. Where the Tribunal itself makes a legal error, our judicial review page explains the court process.

Our articles on why Subclass 820 partner visas are refused and on Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 also explain how issues raised at the first stage can return at the permanent stage, when character and the other criteria are assessed again.

Partner visa unlawful work advice across Australia

Couples with a partner visa unlawful work history live in every part of Australia, and consultations with My Migration Lawyers are held by video. Clients in New South Wales often contact us through our pages for partner visa lawyers in Sydney, partner visa lawyers in Parramatta, immigration lawyers in Sydney and immigration lawyers in Parramatta. Clients in Victoria and Queensland often start with partner visa lawyers in Melbourne, partner visa lawyers in Brisbane, partner visa lawyers on the Gold Coast, immigration lawyers in Melbourne, immigration lawyers in Brisbane and immigration lawyers on the Gold Coast. Couples in Western Australia, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania can read about partner visa lawyers in Perth, partner visa lawyers in Adelaide, partner visa lawyers in Canberra, partner visa lawyers in Hobart, immigration lawyers in Perth, immigration lawyers in Adelaide, immigration lawyers in Canberra and immigration lawyers in Hobart. The same rules apply to a partner visa unlawful work history wherever the couple lives, because they are set by Commonwealth law.

Couples comparing their options may find our guides on the best partner visa lawyer in Australia, partner visa lawyer services in Australia and partner visa lawyer vs doing it yourself useful. Our guide to booking an immigration lawyer consultation explains what happens at a first appointment.

How My Migration Lawyers handles partner visa unlawful work matters

My Migration Lawyers acts in many partner visa matters where the applicant has a history of unlawful work, and in complex cases where that history sits alongside Schedule 3, PIC 4020, earlier refusals or a current visa that is at risk of cancellation. The firm is capable of handling these matters because each partner visa unlawful work case is approached as a legal problem first, and a form-filling exercise second.

In a partner visa unlawful work matter, the firm's work usually includes:

• obtaining the applicant's full visa history, including every grant notice and the work conditions that applied to each visa;
• mapping every period of employment against the visa held at the time, to identify exactly where and when any breach occurred;
• reviewing every earlier visa application for statements about employment, income or compliance that could engage PIC 4020;
• advising on the order and timing of steps, including whether to lodge while a substantive visa is still held and how to manage the risk of cancellation under section 116;
• assessing whether Schedule 3 applies and, where it does, preparing the compelling reasons submission with supporting evidence;
• checking that the answers in the application and in Form 80 are complete, accurate and consistent with the documents;
• advising on work rights during processing, so that no new breach occurs while the application is decided; and
• responding to any section 56 request or section 57 letter, and acting at the Administrative Review Tribunal if review is needed.

The applicant's account of their work history is always their own. My Migration Lawyers reviews it with the applicant, the applicant corrects it, and the firm presents it in the form the law requires. The lawyer decides how the legal arguments are put, including any waiver or compelling reasons submission.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers, our partner visa lawyers service, our family violence partner visa work and our Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa page. If you have a partner visa unlawful work history and want it assessed before you apply or before you respond to the Department, book a consultation online or call 1300 040 300.