Australia's largest independent migration law firm. Get a FREE Consultation T&C's apply
도움이 필요하신가요? 연중무휴로 문의하실 수 있습니다.


2023-2026년 가장 신뢰받는 호주 이민 법률 사무소 수상
2023년, 2024년, 2025년 이민법 부문 1위를 차지했습니다.

2023년, 2024년, 2025년 및 2026년 최고의 이민 전문 변호사 선정

2024년 및 2025년 최고의 마이그레이션 로펌 선정


주요 내용
A Partner visa (Subclass 820/801 onshore, or Subclass 309/100 offshore) carries one of the highest government application charges in the Australian migration programme, currently $11,710 for the primary applicant, effective from 1 July 2026. That charge is not refunded if the application is refused. This guide looks at five of the costliest partner visa application mistakes we see, the kind that quietly undermine otherwise genuine relationships rather than the obscure legal issues applicants often expect. Avoiding partner visa refusal mistakes is rarely about legal complexity. It is about recognising the errors that are easy to overlook.
Under the Migration Regulations 1994, a case officer assessing a spousal or de facto relationship considers the financial, social, and household aspects of the relationship, together with the nature of the couple's commitment to each other (regulation 1.09A for spouses, regulation 1.15A for de facto partners). One of the most common partner visa mistakes is relying heavily on a single category of evidence, such as joint bank statements, while providing little to demonstrate household interdependence or social recognition of the relationship. A marriage certificate alone, for example, does not establish that a relationship is genuine and continuing.
Applicants who make mistakes in partner visa evidence often submit a large volume of documents from only one or two categories, rather than a balanced spread across all aspects the Department expects to see. A well-prepared application draws on evidence collected consistently over time, rather than documents gathered hurriedly in the weeks before lodgement.
[무료 상담]
상담 예약↪CF_200D↩
비자에 대한 자세한 정보를 얻고 싶다면 호주 이민 변호사에게 연락하여 상담을 받으세요.
[/무료_상담]
A sponsor is generally limited to two partner visa sponsorships in their lifetime and must wait five years from the date of an earlier partner visa application before sponsoring again, unless the Department is satisfied that compelling circumstances exist. This restriction applies across the Subclass 820/801, 309/100 and 300 (Prospective Marriage Visa) categories.
This becomes a costly mistake because of timing. Couples frequently prepare relationship evidence for months, then discover at lodgement that the sponsor is not currently eligible, after the non-refundable application charge has already been paid. Checking a sponsor's eligibility before lodging, not after, is one of the simplest ways to avoid partner visa rejection mistakes that have nothing to do with the strength of the relationship itself.
Inconsistent or templated relationship statements are among the most common partner visa documentation mistakes we see. Relationship statements from both partners should independently cover how the couple met, key milestones, and daily life together. A frequent error is submitting statements that read as templated, or that contain factual inconsistencies between the applicant's account and the sponsor's account, such as different dates for significant events.
These inconsistencies matter beyond the written application. Case officers can, and sometimes do, contact applicants or sponsors directly to clarify details, and unprepared or inconsistent answers in that setting can raise doubts a written application had not. Treating a phone call from a case officer with the same care as the written statements, rather than as a formality, helps applicants avoid common partner visa interview mistakes.
Every applicant must meet the health requirement under Public Interest Criterion 4005, and the character requirement under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958. Sponsors are also subject to a character assessment, and a sponsorship will generally be refused where the sponsor has a conviction resulting in a custodial sentence of 12 months or more for a relevant offence, subject to the Department's discretion in compelling circumstances.
Applicants sometimes treat health examinations and police clearances as a final administrative step rather than an early priority. Where a country of residence requires additional time to issue a police clearance, or where a health condition requires further assessment, leaving these checks until late in the process can significantly delay an otherwise strong application. Addressing them early reduces the risk of a request for further information holding up an application that is genuine but not yet decision-ready.
[aml_difference][/aml_difference]
Applicants applying onshore for a Subclass 820 visa without holding a substantive visa at the time of application must generally satisfy Schedule 3 criteria under the Migration Regulations 1994, including that the application was made within 28 days of the last substantive visa ceasing, unless compelling reasons exist for not meeting this requirement.
This is one of the easiest mistakes on partner visa forms to miss, particularly for applicants who have been in Australia on a bridging visa or whose previous visa expired some time ago. Failing to address Schedule 3 at all, rather than providing compelling reasons where the criteria are not met, is a significant and avoidable gap in an application.
[성공 사례] [/성공 사례]
These five partner visa mistakes to avoid share one theme: none of them are about whether the relationship is genuine. Australian Migration Lawyers helps applicants and sponsors build decision-ready applications from the outset, checking sponsorship eligibility, structuring relationship evidence across all required categories, and addressing health, character and Schedule 3 requirements before lodgement rather than after a request for further information. Our team offers a strategic consultation, available seven days a week, to talk through your circumstances and help you understand what your application needs.

미국 법 및 공공 행정 분야에서 15년간의 경력을 쌓은 뒤, 호주 이민법 분야에서 5년간 실무를 수행해 온 닉은 호주 이민 전문 변호사로서 여러 관할권에 걸친 심도 있는 법률 전문성을 업무에 발휘하고 있습니다.
Nick은 플로리다 주립대학교에서 정치학 학사(2000년), 세인트 토마스 대학교 법과대학에서 법학 박사(2004년), 플로리다 주립대학교에서 행정학 석사(2007년)를 취득했습니다. 2006년부터 플로리다 변호사, 2007년부터 컬럼비아 특별구 항소법원 변호사로 활동하며 탁월한 국제 법률 경력을 쌓은 후 2021년 멜버른으로 이전했습니다.
라 트로브 대학교(La Trobe University)와 더 컬리지 오브 로(The College of Law)에서 호주 법학 과정을 마친 후, 2022년 빅토리아주 대법원으로부터 호주 변호사 자격을 취득했습니다. 이후 변호사 등록번호 5513285를 부여받아 이민법 분야에서 활동하고 있습니다. 또한 빅토리아주 법률협회(Law Institute of Victoria)의 회원입니다.
닉은 다양한 이민 관련 문제에 대해 전문적인 조언을 제공합니다. 본인이 직접 이민 절차를 겪어본 경험을 바탕으로, 전문적인 지식은 물론 고객들이 그 과정에서 겪는 어려움을 진심으로 이해하며 상담해 드립니다.
닉은 멜버른, 시드니, 브리즈번, 퍼스, 애들레이드 등 전국 각지의 고객들에게 포괄적인 지원을 제공하고 있습니다.
그는 행정심판소(ART)에서 진행된 절차에서 의뢰인을 대리해 왔으며, 이러한 심판소 변론 경험을 바탕으로 복잡하고 쟁점이 많은 이민 관련 사안을 처리해 왔습니다.
업무 외 시간에는 닉은 독서, 여행, 그리고 멜버른의 커피 문화를 탐방하는 것을 즐깁니다.
법적 고지: Australian Migration Lawyers에서 게시하는 기사 및 블로그 게시물은 일반적인 정보만을 제공하며, 이민 또는 법률 자문을 구성하지 않습니다. 본 콘텐츠를 읽는다고 해서 변호사-의뢰인 관계가 성립되는 것은 아니며, 본 콘텐츠에 의존하는 경우 그 책임은 전적으로 귀하에게 있습니다. 이민법은 수시로 변경되므로, 이민 관련 결정을 내리거나 신청을 진행하기 전에 귀하의 구체적인 상황에 맞춘 전문적인 조언을 얻기 위해 호주 등록 변호사에게 상담하시기 바랍니다.
상황을 알려주시면 곧 연락드리겠습니다.
상황을 알려주시면 곧 연락드리겠습니다.
고객님의 상황에 대해 간단히 알려주시면 저희 이민 변호사 중 한 명이 최대한 빨리 연락을 드릴 것입니다.

비자 신청에 대한 자세한 내용을 설명하는 종합적인 비자 가이드를 만들었습니다. 지금 바로 받아보세요.