Australia's largest independent migration law firm. Get a FREE Consultation T&C's apply
需要帮助吗?我们每周7天都会提供服务。


2023-2026年度澳大利亚最值得信赖移民律师事务所获奖机构
2023 年、2024 年和 2025 年移民法排名第一

入选2023、2024、2025及2026年度顶尖移民律师榜单

被评为 2024 年和 2025 年最佳移民律师事务所

要点总结
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.
[free_consultation]
预约咨询
如果您想了解有关签证的更多信息,请联系澳大利亚移民律师进行咨询。
[/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.

尼克拥有15年美国法律和公共行政领域的从业经验,随后又从事了5年澳大利亚移民法实务工作,因此作为一名澳大利亚移民律师,他具备深厚的跨司法管辖区法律专业知识。
尼克拥有佛罗里达州立大学政治学文学学士学位(2000年)、圣托马斯大学法学院法学博士学位(2004年)以及佛罗里达州立大学公共管理硕士学位(2007年)。 他自2006年起成为佛罗里达州律师协会会员,2007年起成为哥伦比亚特区上诉法院律师协会会员,在2021年迁居墨尔本前已建立起杰出的国际法律职业生涯。
在拉筹伯大学和法律学院完成澳大利亚法律学业后,他于2022年获得维多利亚州最高法院授予的澳大利亚律师资格。随后,他获得了执业律师编号5513285,并以此从事移民法领域的执业工作。他是维多利亚州律师协会的会员。
尼克就各类移民事务提供专业指导。由于他本人也曾亲身经历过移民流程,因此不仅具备专业知识,还能真切理解客户在整个过程中所经历的一切。
尼克为全国各地的客户提供服务,包括墨尔本、悉尼、布里斯班、珀斯和阿德莱德,并提供全面的支持。
他曾在行政复审法庭(ART)的审理程序中代理客户,将法庭辩护经验运用到复杂且存在争议的移民事务中。
工作之余,尼克喜欢阅读、旅行,以及探索墨尔本的咖啡文化。
法律免责声明: 澳大利亚移民律师事务所发布的文章和博客帖子仅提供一般性信息,并不构成移民或法律建议。阅读本内容并不建立律师与客户之间的关系,且任何依赖本内容的行为均完全由您自行承担风险。由于移民法律频繁变更,在做出任何移民决定或提交申请之前,请咨询注册的澳大利亚律师,以获取针对您具体情况的专业建议。
告诉我们你的情况,我们会很快给你答复。
告诉我们你的情况,我们会很快给你答复。
请告诉我们你的情况,我们的移民律师会尽快给你答复。

我们制作了全面的签证指南,概述签证申请的来龙去脉。立即获取。