Partner Visa Evidence: Proving a Genuine Relationship (820/801)

A Subclass 820/801 onshore partner visa is decided on one question: whether your relationship is genuine and continuing. You answer that question with evidence, and the strongest applications share one feature. Their evidence is consistent, clearly dated, and spread across the four aspects of a relationship set out in the Migration Regulations 1994. Applications tend to fail when the evidence concentrates on one aspect and leaves the others thin.

This article explains the framework a decision-maker applies, how the four aspects are actually weighed against each other, what persuasive evidence looks like under each heading, the 12-month rule that applies to de facto applicants, and the gaps that most often lead to a request for further information or a refusal.

The framework: regulation 1.15A(3)

The onshore partner visa is granted in two stages. You lodge one application for both the temporary Subclass 820 and the permanent Subclass 801. The 820 is decided first. The 801 is decided later, usually about two years after you lodge, provided the relationship is still genuine and continuing at that time. Both stages turn on the same question.

Regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994, headed Spouse, governs how a married relationship is assessed, and regulation 1.15A(3) directs the decision-maker to consider four matters: the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship, and the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other. These four aspects are the analytical spine of every partner visa assessment. A parallel provision, regulation 1.09A, headed De facto partner, applies the same four matters to de facto applicants. Organise your evidence under these four headings deliberately, rather than lodging it as a single undifferentiated bundle.

How the four aspects are weighed

The four aspects are not a checklist you tick off. They are the lens through which the decision-maker forms an overall view of whether the relationship is genuine and continuing, and understanding how they interact is what separates a strong application from a merely large one.

The leading authority is He v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 206. The Full Federal Court confirmed that when assessing whether a relationship is genuine and continuing, the decision-maker must consider all the circumstances, including the four matters in regulation 1.15A(3), but need not make an express separate finding on each one. What the reasons must show is that those matters were addressed. See the judgment at classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2017/206.html.

Two practical consequences follow. First, no single aspect is decisive. A couple with modest finances is not disqualified if the household, social, and commitment evidence is strong, because the decision-maker weighs the aspects together and reaches an overall conclusion. Second, none of the four aspects can simply be ignored. Because the reasons must show that each matter was considered, an application that says nothing at all about one aspect gives the decision-maker nothing to weigh there, and invites the inference that there is nothing to say. The four aspects therefore operate as a floor and not a formula: you need to put material before the decision-maker under each heading, but you do not need to win every heading.

A concrete example of the weighing in practice is 1824867 (Migration) [2023] AATA 1111, at classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2023/1111.html. There, a Subclass 820 refusal was set aside once the Tribunal was satisfied the relationship was genuine and continuing. The couple had pooled their finances and shared day-to-day financial responsibilities, and they had an Australian-citizen child together. A Schedule 3 waiver was also applied so that the application could proceed. The case shows how the financial aspect and the nature of the commitment can reinforce one another: pooled, ordinary, shared finances read alongside a shared child are the kind of interlocking evidence across multiple aspects that a decision-maker finds persuasive. It is the balance and coherence of the picture, not the size of the file, that carries the decision.

Financial aspects

This aspect concerns whether you share your finances, not whether you are wealthy. The decision-maker is looking for pooled resources, shared liabilities, and joint financial decisions.

Documents that carry weight include joint bank account statements that show regular, everyday use by both people, rather than an account opened shortly before lodgement. Shared liabilities also demonstrate financial interdependence: a lease in both names, a joint mortgage, joint utility accounts, or shared insurance policies. So do records of one partner supporting the other, transfers between your accounts, and joint ownership of significant assets. Naming each other as a beneficiary on superannuation or an insurance policy is a deliberate step that the decision-maker will treat as meaningful.

What matters most here is duration and ordinary use. This is also where the most common failure appears: thin financial evidence. A joint account with only a few transactions, or opened weeks before lodgement, suggests the account was created for the application. It is the single aspect applicants most often under-evidence, because they assume photographs and statements will carry the case. The pooled, day-to-day finances that persuaded the Tribunal in 1824867 are the standard to aim for. Statements that span many months and show rent, groceries, and bills paid by both partners reflect a genuinely shared financial life.

Nature of the household

This aspect concerns how you run a shared home and divide domestic responsibilities. Couples who live together often under-document it, because the arrangements feel too obvious to prove.

Useful evidence includes correspondence addressed to both partners at the same address over a period of time, a residential lease or property title in both names, and a signed statement describing how you divide chores, cooking, bills, and any caring responsibilities. Mail sent to both of you at one address by a range of senders, such as government agencies, banks, and service providers, is persuasive because it is difficult to arrange artificially. If you own your home together, that is strong evidence. If you rent, put both names on the lease where you are able to.

If you do not live together full time, state this plainly, explain why, and provide evidence of the living arrangement you do have. An unexplained gap in living together prompts a request for information. An explained one usually does not.

Social aspects

This aspect concerns whether you present to others as a couple, and whether the people around you recognise your relationship.

Strong social evidence includes joint invitations, travel taken together with itineraries and boarding passes, dated photographs across a range of occasions with a note of who is present and where, and evidence that family and friends treat you as a couple. Shared club memberships, joint attendance at events, and naming each other as an emergency contact also assist.

Statutory declarations are important here. A Form 888 declaration from someone who names an event they attended with you, explains how they know you as a couple, and gives dates is far more persuasive than one that simply states the relationship is genuine. Two problems recur. The first is a set of undated, uncaptioned photographs that the decision-maker cannot place on a timeline. The second is several near-identical declarations. Provide evidence that spans different periods and comes from people who know different parts of your life.

Nature of the commitment

This aspect concerns the depth and continuity of the relationship: how long you have been together, how well you know each other’s circumstances, and your intentions for a shared future.

Your own statements do most of the work here. A detailed statement from each partner, describing how you met, how the relationship developed, the decisions you have made together, and any periods of separation and how you managed them, demonstrates commitment in a way that documents alone cannot. Evidence of regular contact during any time apart is valuable, particularly if one of you has travelled or lived elsewhere during the relationship. Evidence of joint planning for the future, such as wills naming each other, superannuation beneficiary nominations, and powers of attorney, shows that you regard the relationship as permanent. A shared child, as in 1824867, is powerful evidence under this heading, because it speaks directly to a permanent, mutual commitment.

Where they are required, Form 888 statutory declarations corroborate this commitment when they contain specific detail rather than general praise. A declaration that explains how the writer came to know you as a couple, with concrete examples, is worth far more than one that only asserts the relationship is genuine.

The 12-month rule for de facto applicants

There is a timing requirement that applies to de facto applicants and is separate from the question of whether the relationship is genuine. In most cases, a de facto applicant must show that the relationship existed for at least 12 months immediately before the application was lodged. Married applicants are not subject to this requirement.

Limited exceptions apply. The most common is registering your relationship under a state or territory relationships register, which removes the 12-month requirement. Compelling and compassionate circumstances can also apply in a small number of cases. If you intend to rely on registration or another exception, obtain advice before you lodge, because an error on this point can defeat an otherwise strong application for reasons unrelated to whether your relationship is genuine.

How to present the evidence

Presentation is part of the evidence. Organise your material under the four aspects, arrange the documents within each aspect in date order, and include a short relationship timeline that the decision-maker can check the documents against. Consistency across that timeline is important, because dates that contradict each other are a common reason for refusal.

Give priority to documents from independent, third-party sources over documents you have created yourselves. A joint lease, a bank statement, and a Form 888 declaration each come from an independent source and are difficult to dispute. Aim for coverage rather than volume: a focused set that addresses all four aspects across the whole relationship is stronger than hundreds of pages concentrated in one aspect. Evidence weighted heavily toward the weeks before lodgement can appear arranged for the application, even when the relationship is genuine, so ensure your file spans the full length of the relationship.

Common gaps that lead to a request or refusal

The problems we see most often are avoidable:

• Thin financial evidence: a single account, few transactions, or an account opened just before lodgement, with little to show pooled or day-to-day shared finances.
• Evidence concentrated on social photographs, with little on finances or the household.
• Joint accounts and leases opened immediately before lodgement, which suggest arrangements made for the visa rather than for the relationship.
• Statements that are brief, near-identical in wording, or silent about periods of separation.
• A relationship timeline that does not match the documents attached to it.
• A de facto applicant who has not met the 12-month requirement and has not evidenced an exception.

Any one of these can prompt a request for further information, and several together can support a refusal.

If you receive a request for further information, use it to address the specific point the decision-maker has raised, rather than resubmitting the same bundle. The request identifies the aspect the decision-maker found insufficient. If the application is refused, you can ask the Administrative Review Tribunal to review the decision and decide it again on the facts, which is called merits review, and 1824867 is an example of a refusal set aside on review. The better approach, though, is to prepare an application strong enough that it does not need review.

Have your evidence reviewed before you lodge

A partner visa succeeds on the strength and balance of its evidence across all four aspects of regulation 1.15A(3). If you are unsure whether your documents cover each aspect, whether your de facto relationship meets the 12-month requirement or qualifies for an exception, or how to explain a gap in your history, a review before lodgement is the most useful step you can take. Visa Plan Lawyers prepares and reviews Subclass 820/801 applications and can identify gaps while there is still time to address them. You can read more on our partner visas page, and speak with our team about your relationship evidence.