Australia's largest independent migration law firm. Get a FREE Consultation T&C's apply
需要協助嗎?我們每週 7 天提供服務。


2023-2026年度最受信賴澳洲移民法律事務所得主
2023 年、2024 年和 2025 年移民法排名第一

獲評為 2023、2024、2025 及 2026 年頂尖移民律師

獲評為 2024 & 2025 年最佳移民法律事務所

重點摘要
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.
[免費諮詢]
預約諮詢
如果您有興趣獲得有關簽證的更多資訊,請聯繫澳大利亞移民律師進行諮詢。
[/free_consultation]
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.
[成功案例] [/成功案例]
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.

尼克擁有 15 年美國法律及公共行政領域的經驗,其後又從事 5 年澳洲移民法實務工作,因此作為一名澳洲移民律師,他能將深厚的跨司法管轄區法律專業知識運用於其工作中。
尼克持有佛羅里達州立大學政治學文學士學位(2000年)、聖托馬斯大學法學院法學博士學位(2004年),以及佛羅里達州立大學公共行政碩士學位(2007年)。 自2006年起成為佛羅里達州律師協會會員,並於2007年取得哥倫比亞特區上訴法院律師資格。在2021年遷居墨爾本前,他已建立卓越的國際法律事業。
在拉籌伯大學(La Trobe University)及法律學院(The College of Law)完成澳洲法律學業後,他於2022年獲維多利亞州最高法院核准成為澳洲律師。其後,他取得執業律師編號5513285,並以此從事移民法相關業務。他是維多利亞州律師公會(Law Institute of Victoria)的會員。
尼克針對各類移民事務提供專業指導。由於他本人也曾親身經歷過移民流程,因此不僅具備專業知識,更能真切體會客戶在整個過程中所經歷的一切。
尼克為全國各地的客戶提供服務,包括墨爾本、雪梨、布里斯本、珀斯和阿德萊德,並提供全方位的支援。
他曾代表當事人參與行政覆核審裁處(ART)的聽證程序,並將其在審裁處的辯護經驗運用於複雜且具爭議性的移民案件中。
在工作之餘,尼克喜歡閱讀、旅行,以及探索墨爾本的咖啡文化。
法律免責聲明:由「澳洲移民律師」發布的文章及部落格貼文僅提供一般性資訊,並不構成移民或法律建議。閱讀此內容並不構成律師與客戶之間的關係,且任何依賴此內容的行為,風險均由您自行承擔。由於移民法規經常變更,在做出任何移民決定或提出申請之前,請諮詢註冊的澳洲律師,以獲取針對您具體情況量身訂製的專業建議。
請告訴我們您的情況,我們會盡快回覆您。
請告訴我們您的情況,我們會盡快回覆您。
請告訴我們您的情況,我們的移民律師會盡快回覆您。

我們製作了全面的簽證指南,概述了簽證申請的內在和外在。立即索取。