Subclass 820/801 Partner Visa | Visa Refusal Case Study | Partner Visa Evidence
Client Snapshot
- Applicant: Tashi (names have been changed to maintain confidentiality)
- Sponsor: James (names have been changed to maintain confidentiality)
- Nationality: Bhutanese (Applicant)
- Location: Queensland, Australia
- Relationship Commenced: Late 2022
- Partner Visa Lodged: August 2023
- Visa Refused: June 2025
Background
Tashi, a Bhutanese national, arrived in Australia and met James, an Australian citizen and single father, in Queensland. Their connection quickly deepened, and by May 2023, they had registered their civil partnership. In August 2023, they lodged a Subclass 820/801 Partner visa application through a different migration advisor, confident that their relationship and documentation would satisfy the Department’s requirements.
James had recently finalised a divorce in April 2023, and Tashi submitted a written divorce agreement executed in Bhutan in 2021. Their application included photos, personal declarations, and documents intended to reflect their shared life and future plans.
However, on 10 June 2025, the Department refused the visa application, leaving the couple confused and disheartened. They sought our legal advice and assistance shortly thereafter.
The Challenge
Partner visa applicants must demonstrate a genuine and continuing relationship, with evidence that they live together or do not live separately on a permanent basis. Although Tashi and James had formalised their civil partnership and believed their evidence was sufficient, the Department found that their submission did not meet the legal standard.
When our firm was engaged post-refusal, we reviewed the decision and identified several evidentiary weaknesses in the initial application that had gone unaddressed.
Department’s Concerns
Financial Interdependence
The submitted financial records showed a joint bank account, but transactions were minimal and lacked descriptions. Transfers appeared sporadic and of small amounts. Screenshots from mobile banking apps lacked context, and supporting documents provided from James’ financial obligations to his children were deemed unrelated to his financial connection with Tashi.
Shared Living Arrangements
Evidence supporting cohabitation was deficient as they have provided evidence of their individual household documents – ie. the lease was solely in Tashi’s name, while council rate notices listed James at a different residence— suggesting possible separation during the relevant period. While it is not a requirement for the applicant and sponsor to currently be living together, it is expected that detailed explanation of the reason for living apart, and their future plans to live together are clearly outlined and substantiated in their relationship statements.
Social Recognition of the Relationship
Although some photos and Form 888 declarations were included, they were not supplemented by broader social evidence. There was limited documentation of the couple presenting themselves as partners within their wider community, and flight itineraries lacked context.
Commitment to a Shared Future
The civil partnership registration was acknowledged, but other evidence of long-term intent was weak. Tashi’s divorce documentation was informal and lacked judicial certification. James’ superannuation listed Tashi as a revocable, non-binding beneficiary, and his formal family declarations did not mention her.
Additional Weak or Unreliable Documentation
Evidence such as screenshots of conversations and Medibank membership cards were assessed as inconclusive or lacking identifying details, limiting their probative value.
The Outcome
The visa refusal issued on 10 June 2025 was not based on disbelief in the existence of the relationship, but on a finding that the evidence failed to establish that it was genuine and continuing by law.
When the couple approached us for advice after the refusal, we conducted a thorough case review and outlined clear strategies to rectify the evidentiary issues in any appeal or subsequent application.
Why This Case Matters
This case highlights the importance of quality legal representation and thorough evidentiary preparation from the outset.
It underscores that:
- Registration of a civil partnership, while helpful, is not determinative of a genuine
- Inconsistent or unexplained documentation can undermine otherwise genuine
- Effective relationship statements and legal submissions must clearly explain the couple’s circumstances and
provide corroborative evidence in each required aspect.
For Tashi and James, the refusal was a difficult setback – but with our legal guidance post-refusal, they now have a clearer path forward for a stronger, evidence-based application.
If you are facing Australian immigration law issues like Tashi and James did, get in touch with our immigration lawyers and migration consultants by booking your consultation session here.
Author
Calvin Augustine is the founding solicitor of Augustine & Co. Immigration Lawyers. He graduated with Honors from the University of London law school, before being admitted to practice in Malaysia and Australia (admitted in SA, appears in all Victorian Courts and Tribunals, at trial and appellate levels).
