← Back to Case Studies

Partner Visa 820 Granted at AAT After Schedule 3 Waived — Sponsor's Financial Hardship From Specialised Employment

Visa TypeSubclass 820
CategoryPartner Visa

Case Summary

A partner visa applicant had her Subclass 820 refused on Schedule 3 grounds, compounded by Department suspicions about her intentions following a change of sponsor. We succeeded at AAT by demonstrating the genuineness of the relationship and the severe financial hardship cancellation would cause the sponsor's highly specialised career.

Background

The applicant and sponsor met and rekindled a friendship that became a relationship, with the applicant ending an abusive relationship with a previous partner. The couple married overseas. They returned to Australia and applied for a Subclass 820 partner visa. The application was refused because the applicant was on a Bridging Visa when she applied — not a substantive visa — meaning Schedule 3 applied. Complicating matters, the applicant had previously lodged a partner visa with her former partner and had not informed the Department that relationship had ended until after she married her new husband. The Department questioned her intentions, viewing the circumstances as potentially manipulative.

Challenges

  • Schedule 3 applied because the applicant was on a Bridging Visa at the time of lodgement rather than a substantive visa
  • Previous partner visa application with a different sponsor raised Department suspicions about the genuineness of the new relationship
  • Applicant's failure to promptly notify the Department of the relationship breakdown was factored against her

How We Helped

We prepared a detailed submission and represented the applicant at the AAT hearing. We addressed the confusion surrounding the prior immigration history and demonstrated that the new application was genuine in nature. Our primary compelling circumstances argument focused on the serious financial hardship the sponsor would suffer if forced to resign from his highly specialised position — he worked in a field where his area of employment was niche enough that resignation would make it extremely difficult for him to find a comparable new role.

Schedule a call to discover how our experience and expertise made it possible

Key Success Factors

  • Detailed explanation of the genuine nature of the marriage and relationship
  • Contextualisation of the immigration history to address the Department's suspicions
  • Compelling financial hardship argument centred on the irreversible career damage forced departure would cause the sponsor
Schedule a call to discover how our experience and expertise made it possible

Outcome

The AAT member found that the emotional and financial burden on the sponsor would be too great, and exercised discretion to waive the Schedule 3 requirement. The Subclass 820 partner visa was subsequently granted.

Related Cases

Subclass 300

Expedited Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage Visa Granted – Afghan Applicant Residing in Pakistan

An Afghan applicant with periods of unlawful stay in Pakistan, whose engagement to his Australian-based sponsor was conducted via a video call rather than an in-person ceremony, was granted a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage Visa in 10 months — well ahead of the published 26-month processing time.

Read More →
Subclass 820/801

Onshore Partner Visa (Subclass 820/801) Granted After Character Referral to VACCU

An applicant whose partner visa had been refused in 2014 on genuineness grounds, and later remitted to the Department by the AAT, faced a further character referral to VACCU due to decade-old family violence convictions. The matter was resolved within 4 months and permanent residency was granted.

Read More →
View All Case Studies

Need Help With Your Visa Matter?

Every case is unique. Get personalized assessment of your situation from experienced migration professionals who understand complex immigration challenges.

Request Free Assessment