Who qualifies for the subclass 836 Carer visa, and how long is the queue?

The subclass 836 Carer visa is a permanent onshore visa for a person already in Australia who will give long-term care to an Australian relative with a serious, verified medical condition. It turns on two hard gates: an independent medical assessment the applicant does not control, and a cap-and-queue system that pushes processing times out for years. Both gates operate in a set way in 2026, and each calls for a particular response from a prospective applicant.

What the subclass 836 Carer visa is

The subclass 836 is the onshore permanent Carer visa. The applicant must be in Australia to lodge it, and it leads to permanent residence if granted. Its offshore counterpart is the subclass 116 Carer visa, lodged from outside Australia. The two share the same core “carer” concept but differ on where the applicant must be and on how the stay is managed during the wait.

The visa exists for a narrow purpose. It is designed for the situation where an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen who is usually resident in Australia has a medical condition serious enough that they need ongoing, practical daily assistance, and no adequate care is available from other relatives or from the health and welfare system. It is not a general family reunion pathway.

The carer definition is the real test

Eligibility is built on the definition of “carer” in regulation 1.15AA of the Migration Regulations 1994. Read that provision carefully before anything else, because most refusals come from failing one of its limbs rather than from paperwork.

To meet the definition, all of the following must be satisfied. The Australian relative (or a member of that relative’s family unit) has a medical condition. The condition is causing a physical, intellectual or sensory impairment of that person’s ability to attend to the practical aspects of daily life. An approved health assessment gives an opinion that the impairment meets a specified rating and that the person has, and will continue for at least two years to have, a need for direct assistance because of the condition. The assistance cannot reasonably be provided by any other relative of the resident, or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia. And the applicant is willing and able to provide substantial and continuing assistance. The two-year element attaches to the relative’s need, not to any commitment by the applicant.

The limb that decides most cases is the “cannot reasonably be obtained” requirement. A relative’s preference for the applicant’s care, or the applicant being the natural choice, does not satisfy it. The question is whether the needed assistance is unavailable from other relatives or from mainstream services. Where community aged care, disability supports or other family members could realistically meet the need, the definition is not satisfied, however sincere the arrangement.

The medical assessment you cannot control

The medical condition, the impairment rating and the two-year need for direct assistance are not matters argued in a submission. They are formed through a health assessment carried out by a Department-approved provider, currently Bupa Medical Visa Services, and the regulations require that opinion to be taken as correct. Whether the assistance can reasonably be provided by other relatives or obtained from services is a separate question, which the Department decides on the evidence submitted. The assessment is nonetheless the heart of the application.

That matters for two reasons. First, the applicant does not choose the assessing doctor and cannot substitute the relative’s treating specialist for the approved assessment. Second, the opinion produced is central to whether the regulation 1.15AA definition is met, so a weak or incomplete underlying medical picture is very hard to repair later. The sensible response is to make sure the treating specialists’ reports are thorough, current and specific about daily functional impairment and the level of assistance required, so the approved assessment has a complete record to work from.

Where the application fails, the Administrative Review Tribunal can review the refusal on its merits, but it must apply the same rule that the certificate opinion is taken to be correct, so a refusal on medical grounds cannot be re-decided by the Tribunal on the merits. The route for disputing the medical opinion is a review opinion from the designated provider. A refusal on other limbs, such as whether other care is reasonably available, is reviewable on the merits in the ordinary way. The availability of review is no reason to lodge thin evidence; the medical foundation should be built properly at the start.

The cap and queue: why processing takes years

Even a well-prepared subclass 836 application does not move quickly, and the reason is structural rather than administrative. Carer visas fall within a capped visa category. Under sections 85 to 91 of the Migration Act 1958, the Minister may set a maximum number of visas of a given class to be granted in a program year and may direct that applications beyond that limit be queued.

Once the year’s allocation is reached, remaining applications that are otherwise ready for grant are held and given a queue date. They are then processed in queue-date order as places become available in later years. Published processing estimates for Carer visas are therefore measured in years rather than months, and two applicants who lodged the same week can wait very different lengths of time depending on where the cap fell.

This guide does not state a current waiting period, because it changes with each program year’s planning levels. Check the estimate published by the Department of Home Affairs at immi.homeaffairs.gov.au before relying on any timeframe, and treat any figure quoted by a third party with caution.

The queue changes how the application should be approached. Because the applicant must generally remain in Australia and the wait can be long, the bridging visa and its conditions become as important as the substantive application. Plan for the interim, including work rights and any travel needs, from the day of lodgement.

Onshore status and the Schedule 3 problem

Because the subclass 836 is an onshore visa, immigration status at the time of application is a live issue. An applicant who holds a substantive visa at lodgement will usually be carried through the wait by a bridging visa. An applicant who does not hold a substantive visa may face the Schedule 3 criteria, and satisfying them is difficult.

Schedule 3 requires, among other things, compelling reasons for the grant. The Full Federal Court in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32 confirmed that those compelling reasons are assessed as at the date of decision, not only as at the date of application, so circumstances that develop during the wait can be taken into account. That is a real point in the applicant’s favour, but it is no licence to let a substantive visa lapse. Lodging while a substantive visa is still held avoids the Schedule 3 question altogether, and that is the safer course wherever possible.

What a prospective applicant should do

Start with the definition rather than the form. Confirm that the relative’s condition, the functional impairment and the unavailability of other care can all be evidenced. The approved medical assessment will test the condition, the impairment and the duration of the need for assistance; the Department will decide on the evidence whether other care is reasonably available. Gather detailed, current specialist reports that speak to daily functional need. Map out the bridging visa and interim plans on the assumption that the wait will be long. Resolve onshore status early, so that a Schedule 3 argument is not added to everything else.

The Carer visa rewards careful preparation and punishes optimism. With the medical foundation and immigration status right at lodgement, the years in the queue at least run in the applicant’s favour.

If you are considering a subclass 836 Carer visa, or weighing it against another onshore family option, our team can assess your eligibility and evidence before you lodge. Learn more about how Visa Plan Lawyers advises on family and partner visas, and book a consultation to discuss your situation.

General information only, current at the date shown. It is not legal advice on your situation. To get advice on your matter, book a consultation.