Partner Visa Relationship Statement Mistakes to Avoid

What are the most common partner visa relationship statement mistakes?

The most common partner visa relationship statement mistakes are wrong or inconsistent dates, unexplained gaps in the timeline, generic or template wording, and statements that contradict the application form, Form 80 or the Form 888 statements. Close behind are omissions: periods apart, previous relationships, children and the real story of how the couple met. Each of these mistakes gives a case officer a reason to doubt a relationship that may be completely genuine.

A partner visa relationship statement is the applicant's and the sponsor's own written account of the relationship. The Department of Home Affairs asks each partner for a statement about the history of the relationship, such as when and how the couple met, when they started living together, their joint activities and the significant events in the relationship. It is read alongside everything else in the application. That is why a small error in the partner visa relationship statement can create a much bigger problem than the error itself.

This article is a catalogue of the mistakes that cause doubt or refusal. For each one, it explains why the mistake hurts and what the correct approach is. It is not a guide to drafting a statement from scratch. For that, see how to write a partner visa relationship statement, with examples. For the wider process, the complete guide to partner visas in Australia covers every stage and subclass, and the Subclass 820 partner visa service page explains the onshore application.

The mistakes covered below are:

• wrong or inconsistent dates;
• gaps in the timeline;
• generic or template wording;
• copying online examples or a partner's statement;
• contradicting the application form, Form 80 or the Form 888 statements;
• leaving out periods apart;
• leaving out previous relationships, previous partners and children;
• overstating the relationship;
• omitting how the couple met;
• treating the four aspects as separate statements;
• failing to explain cultural or unusual features;
• not updating the statement;
• writing in a language or tone that is not the person's own; and
• signing without checking.

The final sections deal with the most serious risk of all: false or misleading information under Public Interest Criterion 4020, and how to correct a mistake after lodgement.

Why does a mistake in a partner visa relationship statement matter so much?

A mistake in a partner visa relationship statement matters because the Department decides whether the relationship is genuine largely on credibility, and the statement is the document that sets out the couple's own version of events. If that version is wrong, vague or inconsistent, the case officer has less reason to accept the rest of the evidence.

The legal test comes from the Migration Act 1958. A spouse relationship is defined in section 5F and a de facto relationship in section 5CB. Both require a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, a relationship that is genuine and continuing, and living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. The Migration Regulations 1994 then list the matters the decision maker must consider: regulation 1.15A(3) for married couples and regulation 1.09A(3) for de facto partners. These are the four aspects of the relationship: the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the persons' commitment to each other.

The partner visa relationship statement does not prove any of these aspects on its own. What it does is give the decision maker the framework that the documents are measured against. A joint lease makes sense when the statement says when and why the couple moved in together. A period of separation makes sense when the statement explains it. When the statement and the documents line up, the evidence reinforces itself. When they do not, each document becomes a question.

There is also a second layer of risk. Public Interest Criterion 4020 in Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations is a criterion for partner visas. It requires the applicant not to have given information that is false or misleading in a material particular. A careless partner visa relationship statement can drift into that territory. That issue is covered in detail later in this article.

The practical result is simple. Many partner visa refusals are not about whether the couple has a relationship at all. They are about whether the decision maker was satisfied on the evidence presented. Our article on why partner visas get refused and the breakdown of the most common reasons Subclass 820 visas are refused show how often credibility sits at the centre of a refusal. A sound partner visa relationship statement removes one of the easiest grounds for doubt.

Mistake 1: Wrong or inconsistent dates in the partner visa relationship statement

Wrong or inconsistent dates are the most common partner visa relationship statement mistake, and they are the easiest for a case officer to find. The dates in the statement must match the dates in every other document the couple has given the Department.

The application asks for specific dates. These include the date the couple first met, the date the de facto relationship began or the date of marriage, and the date the couple committed to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others. It also asks about periods lived apart. The sponsor gives the same kind of information in the sponsorship. If the partner visa relationship statement says the couple moved in together in March and the application form says June, the case officer has a contradiction that must be resolved.

Why wrong dates hurt

Dates are objective. A case officer cannot easily test whether a couple loves each other, but they can test whether a lease started on the date the statement says. A wrong date looks either careless or untrue. Neither helps. Where the dates go to a legal requirement, the damage is greater. For de facto applicants, the date the relationship began can decide whether the 12-month de facto relationship requirement is met at the time of application. A wrong start date in the partner visa relationship statement can put that requirement in doubt even when the couple actually satisfies it.

What the correct approach is

The correct approach is to fix the key dates first, before anyone writes a sentence. Each partner should check the dates against documents: messages, tickets, leases, bank records and photographs. Then the same dates should be used in the application, the sponsorship, the partner visa relationship statement of each partner and any Form 888 statements. If a date is genuinely uncertain, the statement should say so and give the best estimate, for example "around the middle of 2023", rather than inventing a precise day. An honest approximation is far better than a confident date that a document later contradicts.

Couples applying on de facto grounds should also read our guide to the de facto partner visa and the 12-month rule, because the start date is so often where the dates go wrong.

Mistake 2: Gaps in the timeline

A gap in the timeline is a period the partner visa relationship statement simply does not cover. Gaps are a mistake because the case officer will fill them with questions, and sometimes with assumptions that are worse than the truth.

A typical gap looks like this. The statement describes meeting, the first months of dating and the decision to move in together. It then jumps two years to the engagement. Nothing is said about where the couple lived, whether either partner travelled, or how the relationship developed in between. The documents may show something happened in that period: a change of address, a long trip overseas, a new job in another city. The statement is silent.

Why gaps hurt

A genuine and continuing relationship is continuous by definition. When the partner visa relationship statement leaves out a long period, the case officer cannot see the relationship continuing through it. Gaps also invite comparison with Form 80, which asks for address history and international travel over the last 10 years, with addresses in chronological order and no gaps. If Form 80 shows the applicant living at three addresses in a period the statement describes as "living together", the gap in the statement has become an inconsistency.

What the correct approach is

The statement should cover the whole relationship in chronological order, from first contact to the date of signing. It does not need equal detail for every month. Quiet periods can be covered in a sentence. What matters is that nothing important is missing and every change of circumstance is accounted for. Before signing, read the statement next to a simple timeline of addresses, travel and work. Any change on the timeline that is not mentioned in the statement is a gap that should be closed. Our guide to completing Form 80 without errors explains the address and travel history the Department already holds.

Mistake 3: Generic or template wording

Generic wording is one of the most damaging partner visa relationship statement mistakes, because it tells the case officer nothing that could not be written about any couple. Phrases such as "we share everything", "we are each other's best friend", "we are deeply committed" and "we plan to spend the rest of our lives together" are not wrong. They are simply empty.

Why generic wording hurts

The decision maker is looking for the detail that only a real couple would know. Policy guidance tells delegates that the partners' knowledge of each other's personal circumstances, including background and family situation, can be relevant to the nature of their commitment. A statement built from general phrases demonstrates none of that knowledge. Worse, case officers read many statements. Generic language that appears across many files is easy to recognise, and it can suggest that the statement was produced from a template rather than written by the person who signed it.

What the correct approach is

The correct approach is specific, concrete facts. Instead of "we share household responsibilities", the statement should say who does what in the house, as it actually happens. Instead of "we are committed to each other", the statement should describe what each partner has actually done that shows commitment: a decision made together, a sacrifice, a family event, a hard period they went through. Specific facts can be checked, and that is exactly why they persuade. A partner visa relationship statement that a case officer could test against the documents is far stronger than one that cannot be tested at all.

Our article on how to prove your relationship is genuine explains how documents and statements work together, and our guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship covers the documents that give the statement its weight.

Mistake 4: Copying online examples or your partner's statement

Copying an online example is a serious partner visa relationship statement mistake, and copying the other partner's statement word for word is almost as bad. Both make the statement look manufactured, and both remove the one thing a statement is supposed to show: an individual account.

Why copying hurts

Sample statements published online are read by many applicants. Sentences, structures and even whole paragraphs from them appear in many applications. When a case officer sees familiar wording, the natural question is whether the rest of the content is also borrowed. Copied examples also tend to include facts that do not fit the couple: a reference to a joint mortgage when the couple rents, or a description of a wedding that never happened in that form. Every borrowed fact is a potential inconsistency.

Two identical statements from the applicant and the sponsor cause a different problem. Two real people do not remember a relationship in exactly the same words. Identical statements suggest that one person wrote both, which undermines the value of having two accounts at all. Two independent accounts that agree on the facts are persuasive precisely because they are independent.

What the correct approach is

Read examples only to understand the kind of topics a partner visa relationship statement usually covers, then put them away. Each partner should write their own account, in their own words, from their own memory. The two statements must agree on facts, dates and events. They should not read as the same document. It is normal and expected that each partner remembers different details, describes events from their own point of view and gives different emphasis to different parts of the story. That variation is a sign of a genuine account. A contradiction on the facts, by contrast, is a problem that must be resolved before lodgement.

Couples who are unsure whether their draft meets this standard often benefit from an independent review. Our article on whether a partner visa lawyer is worth it compared with doing it yourself sets out what a review adds, the guide to when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa covers timing, and our partner visa lawyers page explains how My Migration Lawyers works on these applications.

Mistake 5: Contradicting the application form, Form 80 or the Form 888 statements

Contradicting the rest of the application is the partner visa relationship statement mistake most likely to turn a straightforward case into a credibility case. The statement is never read alone. It is compared with the visa application, the sponsorship, Form 80, any Form 888 statements and the documentary evidence.

Where contradictions usually appear

Contradictions tend to cluster in the same places:

• Relationship dates. The date the couple met, began living together, married or committed to each other differs between the statement and the application.
• Addresses. The statement says the couple has lived together since a certain date, but Form 80 or the sponsor's details list separate addresses for part of that time.
• Travel. The statement describes a holiday together, but the movement records or Form 80 show only one partner travelling, or different dates.
• Employment and finances. The statement says one partner supported the other, but the employment and income details elsewhere do not fit.
• Form 888 statements. A friend's Form 888 statement says the witness met the couple at their engagement party in one city, while the partner visa relationship statement places the engagement somewhere else or at a different time.

Why contradictions hurt

A single contradiction can usually be explained. Several contradictions start to look like a pattern. A case officer who finds that the statement, the forms and the witnesses tell different versions of the same event may conclude that the relationship has been presented rather than described. That is the point at which an application moves from routine assessment to a request for more information under section 56 or an invitation to comment on adverse information under section 57. Our guide to responding to a section 57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explains what happens next.

What the correct approach is

The correct approach is a full cross-check before lodgement. The partner visa relationship statement should be read line by line against the application, Form 80, the sponsorship details and every Form 888 statement. Each date, place and event should match. Where a witness genuinely remembers something differently, that is not a reason to change the witness's account. It is a reason to understand the difference and make sure the core facts agree. Our guides to what a Form 888 statement should actually say and Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explain how witness statements fit with the couple's own account.

Mistake 6: Leaving out periods apart

Leaving out periods apart is a common partner visa relationship statement mistake, usually made by couples who fear that time apart will look bad. The fear is understandable. The omission is the real problem.

The application asks directly whether the couple has lived separately and apart for any period since committing to a shared life together, and if so, for details and reasons. Movement records, Form 80 and the documents will often show time apart in any event. A statement that describes continuous cohabitation when the records show months in different countries is an inconsistency the case officer will find.

Why leaving out periods apart hurts

Time apart is not fatal. The legal test refers to living together, or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. Temporary separation for work, study, family obligations, visa restrictions or caring responsibilities is common in genuine relationships. Departmental policy expects decision makers to consider the reasons for a temporary separation and whether those reasons are consistent with a mutual commitment. What the decision maker cannot do is consider reasons that were never given. An unexplained period apart looks far worse than an explained one, and an apparently hidden period apart raises a question about honesty.

What the correct approach is

The partner visa relationship statement should identify every significant period apart, when it started and ended, why it happened and how the couple maintained the relationship during it. Contact, visits, financial support, shared decisions and plans to reunite are all relevant. The account should match what the application says about separation. Couples whose relationship has included long periods in different countries may also find our article on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa in Australia useful, because the history of visits often forms part of the same story. Where one partner is outside Australia, the Subclass 309 partner visa page explains the offshore application, which is lodged online.

Mistake 7: Leaving out previous relationships, previous partners and children

Leaving out previous relationships, previous partners or children is one of the most serious partner visa relationship statement mistakes, because these facts are asked for elsewhere in the application and the Department can often verify them. An omission here is easily read as concealment.

The partner visa application asks whether the applicant has been married to, or in a de facto relationship with, anyone other than the sponsor. It asks the same about the sponsor. It asks for the names of previous partners, the dates the relationships started and ended, how a marriage ended and the number of children from each relationship. The sponsor's history of sponsoring other partners is also relevant to the limitations on who can sponsor a partner.

Why the omission hurts

A previous relationship that ended before the current one began is usually unremarkable. A previous relationship that overlaps with the current one, or a marriage that was never formally ended, goes directly to whether the couple has a mutual commitment to the exclusion of all others, and in some cases to whether a marriage is valid. Children from earlier relationships may be relevant to the application itself, including as members of the family unit. A partner visa relationship statement that is silent on these matters, while the form discloses them, looks evasive. A statement that is silent while the form also fails to disclose them may amount to false or misleading information.

Tribunal decisions show how often this issue arises. The headnotes of several remittal decisions list a previous relationship that was not declared, or inconsistent information about previous relationships, as a central issue. These are discussed later in this article.

What the correct approach is

The statement should deal openly with any previous relationship that is relevant to the timeline, particularly where it ended close to the start of the current relationship, overlapped with it, or involved children. It does not need to tell the whole story of the earlier relationship. It does need to state when it ended, how, and how that fits with the start of the current relationship. The facts must match the application form exactly. Where a previous marriage has not been formally ended, that issue needs legal advice before lodgement, not a quiet omission. Applicants whose sponsor's history may raise a sponsorship issue should read about partner visa sponsorship limitations before the application is lodged.

Mistake 8: Overstating the relationship

Overstating the relationship is a partner visa relationship statement mistake that comes from good intentions. Couples want the relationship to look as strong as possible, so they round up, smooth over and claim more than the documents can support.

Common examples are describing the couple as living together from a date when they were actually staying together on weekends, claiming fully pooled finances when each partner pays their own way, describing a sponsor as financially supporting the applicant when transfers were occasional, or calling an informal promise an engagement.

Why overstating hurts

Every overstated fact is a fact the documents may contradict. A case officer who finds one overstatement will reasonably wonder what else has been inflated. More seriously, a claim that is not true is information that is false or misleading. If it is relevant to whether the relationship is genuine, it may be material, which brings Public Interest Criterion 4020 into play. The irony is that the true position is usually good enough. Many genuine couples keep separate finances, live in different arrangements for good reasons, or have relationships that grew slowly. The law does not require a relationship to fit one model.

What the correct approach is

The correct approach is accuracy, not advocacy. The partner visa relationship statement should describe the relationship as it actually is, including the parts that do not fit a textbook picture, and explain why the couple has organised their lives that way. A case officer can accept a relationship with separate bank accounts. A case officer cannot accept a statement that claims joint accounts that do not exist. Our partner visa evidence checklist and partner visa document checklist show the kinds of documents that test each claim.

Mistake 9: Omitting how the couple met

Omitting or skimming over how the couple met is a partner visa relationship statement mistake that leaves the foundation of the relationship unexplained. The application asks when and where the couple first met in person, and whether they have met only online. The statement is where that story is told.

Some couples leave it out because they met online and feel uncomfortable about it. Others met through family introduction or a matchmaker and assume it is not worth explaining. Others write one vague sentence: "we met through mutual friends in 2022".

Why the omission hurts

How the couple met is the starting point of the timeline, and it is one of the facts most often asked about at interview and at a Tribunal hearing. A vague or missing account gives the decision maker nothing to test, and makes later inconsistencies more likely, because each partner may tell the story differently when asked. Changing accounts of how a couple met are a recognised credibility issue. The headnote of Vung (Migration) [2021] AATA 3556, for example, records "conflicting and changing information about how parties met and relationship developed".

What the correct approach is

Each partner's statement should explain how, when and where they first met or first made contact, how the first in-person meeting came about if they met online, and how the relationship developed from there. Both accounts should agree on the core facts. There is nothing wrong with meeting online, through an app, through family or through an arranged introduction. What matters is that the story is complete, consistent and true.

Mistake 10: Writing four separate statements for the four aspects

Writing four separate statements, one for each aspect of the relationship, is a partner visa relationship statement mistake based on a common misunderstanding. There is no separate financial statement, household statement, social statement, commitment statement or future plans statement in a partner visa application. There is one relationship statement.

The confusion comes from the four aspects listed in regulations 1.15A(3) and 1.09A(3): the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship and the nature of the persons' commitment to each other. These are the aspects the decision maker assesses. They are not documents the applicant must produce.

Why this mistake hurts

Splitting the relationship into four statements breaks a single story into four disconnected fragments. Events are repeated across documents, sometimes with slightly different details. The chronology disappears. Each fragment tends to become a list of evidence rather than an account of a relationship. The case officer then has to rebuild the story from pieces, and every repetition creates another opportunity for inconsistency. It also signals that the statement was organised around a misunderstanding of the law rather than around the couple's actual life.

What the correct approach is

Each partner should write one partner visa relationship statement that tells the history of the relationship in order. Facts relevant to the four aspects belong inside that story, where they actually happened: the decision to open a joint account when the couple moved in together, the division of housework once they set up a home, introductions to family, and the choices that show commitment. The decision maker will consider all four aspects together, as a whole, across the entire application. The statement does not need headings for them. Our guide to the Subclass 820 visa, the overview of Subclass 820 requirements and documents and the complete Subclass 820 partner visa guide explain where the statement sits in the onshore application.

Mistake 11: Failing to explain cultural or unusual features

Failing to explain cultural or unusual features is a partner visa relationship statement mistake that leaves the case officer to interpret the relationship through assumptions that may not fit. Every relationship has features that look unusual from the outside. The statement is the place to explain them.

Features that commonly need explanation include an arranged or family-introduced marriage, a short period between meeting and marrying, a significant age difference, a large difference in background or income, a religious ceremony without civil registration or the reverse, living with extended family, a relationship conducted mostly at a distance, and cultural rules that limit how openly a couple can show their relationship.

Why the omission hurts

A decision maker who does not understand why the couple did something a certain way may treat it as a sign that the relationship is not genuine. Departmental policy recognises that the laws and traditions of an applicant's home country may discourage a couple from openly admitting the existence of the relationship, and delegates are asked to take that into account. But a delegate can only take into account what the evidence shows. If the partner visa relationship statement does not explain the cultural context, the context may never be considered.

What the correct approach is

The statement should explain any feature of the relationship that a decision maker from a different background might misread, in plain factual terms. If the families arranged the introduction, the statement should explain how that works in the couple's community and how the couple came to their own decision. If the couple married quickly, the statement should explain why. If they cannot live openly together in one country, the statement should say so and explain the consequences. The aim is understanding, not justification.

Same-sex couples may face particular issues where a relationship could not be acknowledged in one partner's home country. Our page on LGBTI and same-sex partner visas deals with that situation, and the services for Subclass 300 prospective marriage visas are relevant to couples who are engaged rather than married.

Mistake 12: Not updating the partner visa relationship statement

Not updating the partner visa relationship statement is a mistake that appears later in the process. A statement is accurate on the day it is signed. Partner applications take time, and the relationship continues to develop while the application is being processed.

The partner visa is a two-stage visa. The permanent stage is assessed once two years have passed since the combined application was made. By then, the original partner visa relationship statement describes a relationship that is two or more years out of date. The couple may have moved, married, had a child, bought property, changed jobs or spent time apart. Our guide to Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 explains how the two stages fit together.

Why a stale statement hurts

An outdated statement does not tell the decision maker that the relationship is continuing. It also creates new inconsistencies: the documents provided at the permanent stage show a different address or a new child, while the only statement on file describes the old situation. Changes of circumstance that affect answers in the application must also be notified under section 104 of the Migration Act, usually with Form 1022. If the circumstances have changed and the Department has not been told, the stale statement is part of a bigger problem.

The same issue arises on review. Where a partner visa is refused and the matter goes to the Administrative Review Tribunal, the Tribunal considers the relationship as at the time of its decision for many criteria. An updated statement can be important. The headnote of Tran (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2243 lists an "updated relationship statement" alongside shared family commitments and family recognition of the relationship.

What the correct approach is

When the Department asks for further information at the permanent stage, or when a matter goes to review, each partner should consider providing an updated partner visa relationship statement that picks up where the original statement ended. It should cover what has happened since, in the same honest and specific way, and should be consistent with the original statement and any notified changes. Our guide to Form 1022 and when to notify a change of circumstances explains the notification obligation, and our article on what happens if a Subclass 820 relationship breaks down covers the most serious change of all.

Mistake 13: A statement that is not in the person's own language or voice

A partner visa relationship statement written in a language or tone that is not the person's own is a mistake that case officers notice quickly. A statement in polished legal English from a person who struggles to speak English, or a statement in formal language that reads nothing like the person who signed it, raises an immediate question about who actually wrote it.

Why this mistake hurts

The statement is supposed to be the person's own account. If an applicant is interviewed or gives evidence at a Tribunal hearing, the decision maker will hear how they actually speak and what they actually remember. A large gap between the written statement and the oral evidence damages credibility. It can also suggest that the person did not understand what they signed, which in turn weakens the value of everything in the statement. The headnote of Gillard (Migration) [2019] AATA 2934 refers to a "concern about reliability of certain evidence" and a "language barrier" in an arranged marriage, which illustrates how language and reliability can become linked in partner cases.

What the correct approach is

Each person should write in the language they are most comfortable with, in their own natural style. If the statement is written in a language other than English, it should be translated into English for the Department, and the person should be satisfied that the translation is accurate. Correcting spelling and grammar is reasonable. Rewriting the statement so that it no longer sounds like the person is not. The statement does not need to be eloquent. It needs to be true, detailed and recognisably theirs. A lawyer reviewing the statement should identify what is unclear, missing or inconsistent, and the person should then correct and confirm it in their own words.

Mistake 14: Signing without checking

Signing without checking is the partner visa relationship statement mistake that turns every other mistake into the signatory's responsibility. A signed statement is a declaration that its contents are true. Whoever helped with the drafting, the person who signs it is the person who answers for it.

Why this mistake hurts

Many errors in statements are not deliberate. A date is typed wrongly. A relative helping with the English changes a detail. An earlier draft is uploaded instead of the final version. A translation does not say what the person meant. None of these errors will be accepted at face value simply because the applicant did not notice them. Policy guidance on Public Interest Criterion 4020 states that where an applicant willingly lets a third party act for them and does not limit or control what the third party does, information given on their behalf is at least caused to be given by the applicant. The responsibility stays with the applicant.

What the correct approach is

Before signing, each person should read the final version of their partner visa relationship statement in full, in a language they understand, and check every date, name, place and event against their own memory and the documents. They should check that it matches the application form, Form 80, the sponsorship and the Form 888 statements. If anything is wrong, it should be corrected before signing, not after lodgement. The version uploaded to ImmiAccount should be the version that was signed. Our guide to creating and using an ImmiAccount explains how documents are attached to an online application.

Is a mistake in a partner visa relationship statement false or misleading information under PIC 4020?

No, an honest mistake is not automatically false or misleading information that leads to refusal under Public Interest Criterion 4020, but a mistake that is not explained can be treated as false or misleading, and a deliberate untruth will be. The distinction between the two is the single most important legal point in this article.

What PIC 4020 requires

Public Interest Criterion 4020 requires the decision maker to be satisfied that the applicant has not given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application, or in relation to a visa held in the 12 months before the application was made. PIC 4020(5) defines information that is false or misleading in a material particular as information that is false or misleading at the time it is given, and relevant to any of the criteria considered in deciding the application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.

Departmental policy explains that false information is information contrary to fact, and misleading information gives a wrong idea or creates a false impression even though it may contain some truth. Policy also gives, as an example of false or misleading information, the omission of facts by a partner visa applicant. A partner visa relationship statement goes directly to whether the relationship is genuine and continuing, so most facts in it will be relevant to a criterion.

The innocent mistake principle

Departmental policy, following a Full Federal Court decision, states that refusal under PIC 4020 requires the information to have the quality of "purposeful falsity", although the applicant need not personally know of it. Policy also accepts that an application cannot be refused under PIC 4020 where the applicant can explain an innocent mistake. The onus is on the applicant to explain what happened and show that it was a genuine mistake.

That is why correcting an error promptly matters so much. An applicant who identifies a mistake in the partner visa relationship statement and notifies the Department is in a very different position from an applicant whose mistake is found by the case officer.

Why the consequences are serious

A refusal under PIC 4020(1) affects more than the current application. PIC 4020(2) requires that the applicant, and members of their family unit, have not been refused a visa under PIC 4020(1) in the period starting three years before the later application. PIC 4020 can be waived only where there are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, that justify the grant of the visa. The applicant's own interests are not relevant to the waiver. Partners and Australian citizen children may be relevant. A waiver should never be part of the plan.

Couples facing a PIC 4020 issue should read about visa refusals and, where a visa has already been granted, visa cancellations, because the obligation to correct incorrect information continues after grant.

How can a mistake be corrected after the partner visa relationship statement is lodged?

A mistake in a lodged partner visa relationship statement should be corrected in writing, as soon as practicable, with an explanation of what was wrong, what the correct position is and why the error occurred. The Department's Form 1023 Notification of incorrect answers is the form designed for this purpose.

Section 101 of the Migration Act requires a visa applicant to answer every question on the application form and to give no incorrect answers. Section 105 requires a non-citizen who becomes aware that an answer in the application was incorrect when given to notify an officer in writing of the incorrectness and the correct answer as soon as practicable. Section 104 deals with answers that become incorrect because circumstances change, which is handled with Form 1022. Both obligations continue even after a visa is granted.

What a correction should include

A correction should identify the exact error, give the correct information and explain why the error was made. It should be supported by documents where possible. Where the error appears in the partner visa relationship statement and also in the application form or a Form 888 statement, every document should be corrected consistently. A correction that fixes one document and leaves the contradiction in another solves nothing.

What a correction should not do

A correction should not rewrite the history of the relationship to suit the evidence, add claims that were not made before without explanation, or blame others for errors without any detail. A corrected account that looks tailored to the case officer's concern can damage credibility more than the original mistake. If the Department has already raised the issue in a request under section 56 or a natural justice letter under section 57, the response needs particular care. Our guides to responding to a section 56 request for more information and to what to expect from a second opinion from an immigration lawyer are useful starting points, and our article on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application explains how a lawyer can step in part way through. A representative is appointed with Form 956.

What Tribunal decisions show about partner visa relationship statement mistakes

Tribunal decisions show that inconsistent accounts, undisclosed previous relationships and outdated statements are recurring issues in partner visa refusals, and that they can be addressed on review. Each decision below is a remittal, which means the Tribunal sent the matter back to the Department to reconsider. The descriptions are limited to the reported issues in each decision's headnote.

• Vung (Migration) [2021] AATA 3556. The headnote records false or misleading information in relation to the visa application, the genuine relationship, and "conflicting and changing information about how parties met and relationship developed". This is the clearest illustration of why the story of how a couple met must be consistent from the first statement onward.
• PALASIT (MIGRATION) [2026] ARTA 1914. The reported issues are false or misleading information, a previous relationship not declared, whether there was an element of fraud or deception, and the discretion to waive the criterion. It shows how an undisclosed previous relationship becomes a PIC 4020 issue.
• 2107016 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2250. The headnote states that the parties provided false or misleading information and failed to disclose details of a previous relationship and a Subclass 300 visa application. Previous relationships and previous applications must be disclosed consistently.
• Ahmed (Migration) [2023] AATA 3761. The reported issues include a genuine and continuing relationship, a valid marriage, pooling of finances while living in different countries, and adverse and inconsistent information about previous relationships.
• Nguyen (Migration) [2018] AATA 5304. The headnote lists a genuine spousal relationship, marital status with Centrelink, inconsistencies between the applicant and the sponsor at the hearing, and a 19-year age difference. Inconsistency between partners is tested in person as well as on paper.
• Tran (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2243. The reported issues are a genuine and continuing relationship, an updated relationship statement, shared family commitments and family recognition of the relationship.
• Magallanes (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1331. The headnote refers to an age difference and limited evidence provided to the Department, with detailed statements and documentation provided to the Tribunal.

Decisions cited as AATA were made by the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal on 14 October 2024. The lesson across these decisions is consistent. Statements that are inconsistent, incomplete or silent on previous relationships invite refusal, and detailed, accurate and updated statements are part of how those concerns are dealt with on review. Review deadlines are short and strictly applied. Our guides to partner visa appeal options, what to expect at an ART review and when you need a visa appeal lawyer explain the process, and our partner visa refusals page sets out how My Migration Lawyers acts on review.

How My Migration Lawyers reviews a partner visa relationship statement

My Migration Lawyers reviews a partner visa relationship statement as part of the whole application, so that the statement, the forms, the Form 888 statements and the evidence tell one consistent and truthful account. The statement remains the client's own account. The firm does not write the relationship history for a client. It identifies gaps, inconsistencies and legal risks, and the client corrects and confirms their own statement.

The review follows the order in which problems usually arise:

• Timeline first. The firm builds a chronology of the relationship from the documents: addresses, travel, employment, relationship dates and key events. Each partner's statement is then checked against it.
• Cross-check against the application. The partner visa relationship statement is compared with the application form, Form 80, the sponsorship details and each Form 888 statement. Every contradiction is identified for the client to resolve.
• Gaps and omissions. The firm identifies periods the statement does not cover, periods apart that are not explained, and previous relationships, previous partners or children that are disclosed elsewhere but not dealt with in the statement.
• Generic, copied or overstated content. Wording that is empty, borrowed or unsupported by the documents is flagged, so the client can replace it with specific facts from their own experience.
• Legal risk. The firm advises on issues that go beyond drafting, including the 12-month de facto requirement, previous marriages that have not ended, sponsorship limitations, Schedule 3 criteria for applicants without a substantive visa, and any risk under PIC 4020.
• Corrections after lodgement. Where a statement has already been lodged with an error, the firm advises on correcting it with Form 1023 or notifying changes with Form 1022, and on responding to any request or natural justice letter.
• Updates and review. At the permanent stage, or on review at the Administrative Review Tribunal, the firm advises on whether an updated partner visa relationship statement is needed and what it should address.

My Migration Lawyers acts in many partner visa matters where the relationship statement is at the centre of the case, including applications with previous relationships, long periods apart, cultural features that need explanation, family violence claims, Schedule 3 waiver issues and refusals on credibility grounds. The firm deals with complex cases and is capable of handling matters at every stage, from the first application to review. Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer, oversees the firm's partner visa work. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers.

Consultations are by video, and the firm acts for clients across Australia, including couples who would otherwise search for partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, the Gold Coast, Hobart or Parramatta. Our guide to choosing the best partner visa lawyer in Australia explains what to look for.

If you are preparing a partner visa relationship statement, have already lodged one and found an error, or have received a request or natural justice letter about your relationship, Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers. You can also call 1300 040 300.