Refused partner visa: AAT review strategy, evidence, and resubmission
When a partner visa (820, 309, 300) is refused, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal provides merits review. This article covers AAT jurisdiction, evidence strategy on review, hearing preparation, timeframes, and the option of a fresh application.
A partner visa refusal does not end the pathway to permanent residency. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) Migration and Refugee Division has jurisdiction to conduct a full merits review of most partner visa refusal decisions made by the Department of Home Affairs. Merits review means the AAT re-examines the entire application — facts, law, and discretion — and can substitute its own decision for the Department’s. The AAT can affirm the refusal, set it aside and remit the matter to the Department with a direction that the visa be granted, or vary the decision.
In 2024–2025, the AAT received approximately 2,200 partner visa review applications. About 38% resulted in a remittal (the matter sent back to the Department for grant), 45% resulted in an affirmation of the refusal, and the remainder were withdrawn before hearing. The odds of success on review depend heavily on the reason for the original refusal and the quality of the evidence presented at the AAT hearing.
For applicants whose partner visa has been refused at the AAT stage, judicial review at the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) is available, but this is a review of legal error only — the Court does not re-examine the factual merits — and is not covered in this article.
When AAT review is available
Not all partner visa decisions can be reviewed at the AAT. The following categories are reviewable:
- Refusal of a partner visa (subclasses 820, 801, 309, 100, 300) where the decision was made by a delegate of the Minister
- Cancellation of a partner visa under section 109 (incorrect information), section 116 (general cancellation power), or section 128 (cancellation while outside Australia)
- Refusal of a sponsorship application
The following are not reviewable at the AAT:
- Refusal on character grounds under section 501 of the Migration Act (only judicial review is available)
- A decision made personally by the Minister (only judicial review is available)
- Refusal of a visa application that was not validly made
Time limit. An application for AAT review must be lodged within 28 days of the date the applicant is taken to have received the Department’s decision. For applicants outside Australia, the notification period may be shorter (7 or 28 days depending on the method of notification). Missing the deadline forfeits the right to merits review entirely. The 28-day clock runs from the date of notification, not the date the applicant reads the decision — a distinction that catches applicants who change address and do not update the Department.
Application fee. The AAT review application fee is AUD 3,374 (2025–2026). A 50% reduction is available where the applicant holds a health care card, pensioner concession card, or can demonstrate financial hardship. If the review is successful (the AAT sets aside the refusal), 50% of the fee is refunded.
Understanding the refusal: root-cause diagnosis
Before lodging an AAT application, the applicant and their representative must understand precisely why the visa was refused. The Department’s decision record — which the applicant is entitled to receive — sets out the legislative provisions relied on, the evidence considered, and the delegate’s reasoning. A generic “relationship not genuine” refusal can mask several distinct underlying findings:
Specific evidence gaps. The delegate may have found that a particular pillar was unsatisfied — for example, insufficient evidence of financial interdependence, or insufficient social recognition. An AAT review that addresses only the deficient pillar has a far better chance than one that simply re-submits the original application materials.
Inconsistency findings. Where the delegate identified inconsistencies between the parties’ accounts, the AAT will test those inconsistencies in the hearing. The strategy must include a clear explanation for each inconsistency, supported by fresh evidence where possible.
Schedule 3 waiver denied. For onshore applicants who lodged without a substantive visa, the delegate’s refusal may turn on the finding that compelling reasons for waiving Schedule 3 did not exist. The AAT review must present new or additional evidence of compelling circumstances — evidence that was not before the delegate.
Sponsorship bar applied. Where the sponsor was found ineligible, the AAT review is unlikely to succeed unless there is a factual error in the Department’s assessment — for example, the Department incorrectly counted the number of prior sponsorships.
Evidence strategy on review: what to add, not just what to re-submit
The single most common error in AAT partner visa reviews is re-submitting the same evidence bundle that the Department refused. The AAT’s jurisdiction is to conduct a fresh assessment on the evidence as it stands at the time of the AAT decision — which means evidence of the relationship’s continuation since the Department’s refusal is both admissible and, in practice, essential.
An effective AAT evidence strategy includes:
Updated relationship statements. Both parties should provide fresh statements addressing the specific concerns raised in the refusal decision. A generic restatement of the relationship’s history is insufficient; the statements must engage with the delegate’s findings directly.
Third-party evidence addressing gaps. If the Department found insufficient social recognition, new statutory declarations from people who have interacted with the couple since the refusal are critical. If financial evidence was lacking, updated bank statements, joint lease agreements, or evidence of shared assets acquired since the refusal carry weight.
Evidence of the relationship since refusal. The period between the Department’s refusal and the AAT hearing — which may be 12–18 months — is an opportunity to generate evidence. If the parties have continued their relationship during this period, the evidence of that continuation can be decisive.
Expert reports. In some cases — particularly those involving medical conditions, family violence claims, or complex Schedule 3 arguments — an expert report (medical, psychological, or migration law opinion) can be submitted.
The AAT hearing
Most partner visa reviews proceed to an oral hearing. The hearing is conducted by an AAT member (a lawyer or former judicial officer), not a Departmental officer. The hearing is inquisitorial, not adversarial — the member asks questions, and there is no Department advocate arguing for the refusal. The member’s role is to form their own view of the merits.
Who attends. The applicant, the sponsor, and any witnesses whose evidence is relied upon should attend. Legal representatives or migration agents may appear. The Department is not usually represented at the hearing, though it may make written submissions.
What happens. The member will question the applicant and sponsor separately, then may question them together. The questioning focuses on the relationship’s history, the parties’ knowledge of each other’s circumstances, and any inconsistencies with the documentary evidence. The member may also question supporting witnesses.
Conduct at hearing. The AAT is less formal than a court, but the hearing is recorded and the member’s questions carry legal weight. Inconsistent answers — whether between the parties’ oral evidence and their written statements, or between the parties’ accounts of the same events — are the most frequent basis for an affirmed refusal. Preparation, including a mock hearing with a migration agent, is standard practice for represented applicants.
Timeline
| Stage | Typical duration |
|---|---|
| Application lodged to hearing invitation | 8–14 months |
| Hearing to decision | 2–4 months |
| Remittal to Department grant | 2–4 months |
| Total review pathway | 12–22 months |
During this period, the applicant’s bridging visa (if onshore) remains valid, and work rights continue, provided the review application was lodged within the 28-day period.
Fresh application vs AAT review: a tactical choice
An applicant whose partner visa has been refused has two options: lodge a fresh application, or seek AAT review. (They cannot do both for the same visa subclass simultaneously — lodging a fresh application while an AAT review is pending may cause the AAT to have no jurisdiction.)
Fresh application is preferable where:
- The refusal was based on a curable defect — for example, a missing police clearance or a health examination that has now been completed
- The applicant’s circumstances have materially changed since the original application — for example, the birth of a child, or the purchase of a property together
- The relationship evidence was genuinely weak at the original lodgement and there is now significantly stronger evidence
- The applicant does not want to wait 12–22 months for an AAT outcome
AAT review is preferable where:
- The Department’s decision was arguably wrong on the facts or law — for example, it failed to consider key evidence, or applied an incorrect legal test
- The refusal was based on a negative credibility assessment that can be challenged at hearing through consistent oral evidence
- The applicant cannot afford a fresh Visa Application Charge (AUD 9,095) and is prepared to wait
- The case involves a Schedule 3 assessment where the delegate’s exercise of discretion was arguably unreasonable
The AAT review pathway costs less in fees (AUD 3,374 vs AUD 9,095 for a fresh application) but takes longer and carries the risk of an affirmed refusal, which then requires judicial review at the FCFCOA — a far more expensive and narrow pathway.
If the AAT affirms the refusal
If the AAT affirms the Department’s refusal, the applicant may appeal to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on a question of law only. This is not a merits review — the Court does not re-examine the evidence. It asks only whether the AAT made a jurisdictional error: failing to consider a relevant matter, considering an irrelevant matter, denying procedural fairness, or misapplying the law.
Judicial review is a specialised area of migration law. Applicants considering this step should obtain legal advice from a lawyer with migration litigation experience. The costs are substantial: legal fees for a migration judicial review application typically range from AUD 8,000 to AUD 25,000, and the Court’s filing fee is approximately AUD 3,800.