Refusals rarely turn on a delegate concluding that a couple is not in love. They turn on the delegate being unable, on the material before them, to be satisfied of the statutory criteria. That is a different and much narrower failure — and it is usually a failure of structure.
Here are the five patterns that account for most of the refusals we review for subclass 820/801 and 309/100 partner visa.
1. One of the four statutory matters is unaddressed
The decision-maker to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including the financial, household, social and commitment matters. An application that is comprehensively evidenced across three of them and silent on the fourth gives the delegate an unanswered question.
The commonly neglected category is commitment — the duration of the relationship, the degree of companionship and emotional support, and whether the parties see the relationship as long-term. It is the hardest to evidence and the easiest to skip, and it is also the category that speaks most directly to genuineness.
2. The evidence is clustered, not continuous
Dense documentation at the beginning, dense documentation in the month before lodgement, and a long thin middle. This is the single most common structural weakness. See our timeline method guide for the fix: evidence in each category in each six-month block, however modest.
3. The de facto commencement date is not supported
The applicant asserts a relationship start date that the evidence places later. Under regulation 2.03A this is fatal to the duration requirement, and the application fails without the delegate ever reaching the genuineness question. Our guide on when a de facto relationship actually starts sets out how to identify and corroborate the date.
4. Inconsistencies between the applicant’s and sponsor’s accounts
Two statements that disagree on when the couple met, when they moved in, or whether a family member was present at a key event. Delegates read them together. Inconsistency on a peripheral detail is human; inconsistency on the material chronology invites an adverse credibility finding that colours the assessment of everything else.
5. Schedule 3 not addressed
For onshore subclass 820 applicants who did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application, Schedule 3 criteria apply unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying them. This is a discrete legal argument, distinct from the relationship evidence, and it must be made expressly and supported.
It is also an area where the law has moved in applicants’ favour. Following the Full Federal Court’s decision in *Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2016] FCAFC 32, compelling reasons are not confined to circumstances existing at the date of application — matters arising after lodgement can be taken into account. Many onshore applicants who were told their position was hopeless are not.
What a section 57 letter means
If you receive a letter putting adverse information to you and inviting comment, that is the Department discharging its natural justice obligation under section 57 of the Migration Act 1958. It is not a refusal. It is the last, best opportunity to answer the delegate’s actual concern.
Three things matter. Answer the specific concern raised, not the concerns you assume they have. Respond within the time given — these deadlines are strict. And do not simply submit more of the same evidence; if the delegate was unpersuaded by a hundred photographs, another hundred will not assist. Identify the evidentiary gap and fill that.
Section 57 responses are where good legal drafting has the highest marginal value in the entire partner visa process. It is worth getting advice before you reply.
If you have already been refused
Most partner visa refusals attract merits review at the Administrative Review Tribunal. Time limits are short and strictly applied — check the date on your refusal notice and the review period stated in it immediately, because the Tribunal generally has no power to extend. A review application fee applies; confirm the current amount on the ART website.
Review is a fresh consideration of the merits, and new evidence can be put before the Tribunal. That means a refusal caused by an evidentiary gap is frequently recoverable — but only if the gap is correctly diagnosed. Re-submitting the original application with additional photographs is the most common and least effective response. Need Help? Book a consultation
Frequently asked questions
Can I lodge a new partner visa application instead of appealing?
Sometimes, but a fresh application means paying the full application charge again and, if you are onshore without a substantive visa, may raise Schedule 3 issues. Get advice on which path is stronger before deciding.
Does a refusal affect future applications?
It can. A refusal is disclosable and section 48 of the Migration Act restricts further onshore applications to limited visa options.
How long do I have to apply for review?
The period is stated in your refusal notice and is short. Act on the day you receive it.
Refused, or holding a section 57 letter? Book a file review with Arnela Tolic.
Suite 19/103 George Street, Parramatta NSW 2150 | (02) 8077 2562 |
Arnela Tolic is the Principal Solicitor of Tolic Lawyers, a Parramatta-based migration and employment law firm, and the NSW Representative for Migration Alliance. Tolic Lawyers advises on onshore subclass 820/801 and offshore subclass 309/100 partner visa applications, including complex de facto and Schedule 3 matters.
Disclaimer: This article is general information current as at September 2026. It is not legal advice and does not take into account your circumstances. Verify all fees and processing times with the Department of Home Affairs before acting.
