Another Firm Said Yes Immediately. We Said Not Yet.

Introduction

James and Maria came to us after an initial consultation with another migration firm. They'd been told their partner visa application could proceed immediately and were quoted a fixed fee to lodge within the fortnight.

Something didn't sit right with them. The consultation had lasted twenty minutes. The firm hadn't asked for any documents. And when James asked about Schedule 3 — he'd read online that it might apply to their situation — the response was vague. "We handle these all the time. It'll be fine."

They wanted a second opinion before committing thousands of dollars to a process they didn't fully understand.

Challenges

Maria had overstayed her student visa by three weeks before she and James had met. By the time they were ready to apply for the partner visa, she'd been unlawful for several months. Schedule 3 applied. This wasn't a minor technicality — it was a threshold issue that required the Department to be satisfied of compelling circumstances and strong compassionate grounds before the visa could even be considered on its merits.

During our initial consultation, we spent considerable time understanding the full picture: when Maria's visa had expired, the circumstances around the overstay, the timeline of their relationship, their current living situation, and the evidence they had available.

We were direct with them. Schedule 3 matters are difficult. The legal threshold is high. Many applications fail not because the relationship isn't genuine, but because the Schedule 3 criteria aren't met. We explained exactly what those criteria required and assessed their circumstances against them.

Our honest view: they had grounds to argue compelling circumstances, but the evidence wasn't ready. Their relationship was genuine — that was clear from speaking with them — but the documentary evidence didn't yet reflect the depth and commitment they described. They'd been living together for eight months but had limited joint financial evidence. Their social recognition as a couple was strong within their immediate circle but poorly documented.

We told them we wouldn't accept the matter in its current state. Not because we doubted their relationship, but because lodging prematurely would waste their money and potentially compromise their prospects if the application was refused and they needed to pursue review.

Solution

Rather than rushing to lodge, we provided James and Maria with a detailed evidence-building plan. We explained exactly what the Department looks for in Schedule 3 matters and how their current evidence fell short. We gave them a realistic timeline — three to four months of active evidence consolidation — and specific guidance on what to prioritise.

We also explained the risks clearly. Even with stronger evidence, Schedule 3 matters carry uncertainty. We couldn't promise approval. What we could promise was that if they followed our guidance and we accepted the matter, their application would be as strong as their circumstances allowed.

They had questions. We answered them. They wanted time to think. We gave them our standard two-business-day cooling-off period and told them there was no pressure to proceed at all — with us or anyone else.

James and Maria returned three months later. They'd followed our evidence plan closely. They now had a joint lease in both names, a joint bank account with regular shared expenses, statutory declarations from friends and family who could speak to their relationship in detail, photographs documenting their life together over the preceding months, and correspondence showing Maria's integration into James's family.

We reviewed everything. The evidence was materially stronger. The Schedule 3 argument was now supportable. We accepted the matter.

Our engagement documents set out exactly what work was included at each stage, when payments were due, and what our service standards committed us to during the processing period. James and Maria knew what they were paying for, when they'd hear from us, and what would happen if circumstances changed.

We prepared and lodged the partner visa application with comprehensive submissions addressing the Schedule 3 criteria directly. We didn't hide from the issue or hope the Department wouldn't notice. We fronted it, explained it, and provided evidence and argument to support the exercise of discretion.

The application included a detailed relationship statement, a chronology supported by documentary evidence, statutory declarations from witnesses, financial and cohabitation evidence, and a specific submission addressing each element of the Schedule 3 test.

Results

Processing took fourteen months. During that time, James and Maria received updates from us at the intervals we'd committed to — even when there was nothing new to report. They were never left wondering whether their file had been forgotten.

Maria was granted her Subclass 820 visa. The Department was satisfied that compelling circumstances existed and that the relationship was genuine and continuing. She's now awaiting the second stage of the application for permanent residence.

What James said:

"The first firm we spoke to would have taken our money and lodged the application that week. I'm certain of it now. If we'd done that, I don't think we'd have been approved. My Migration Lawyers told us things we didn't want to hear at first, but they were right. The extra time to build our evidence made the difference. We always knew where we stood, and we never felt like just another file."

Key Takeaways

• Visa type: Partner visa (Subclass 820/801)
• Complicating factor: Schedule 3 — applicant unlawful at time of application
• Initial assessment: Matter not suitable to proceed in current state
• Evidence-building period: Three months prior to engagement
• Processing time: Fourteen months from lodgement to 820 grant
• Outcome: Subclass 820 visa granted

Conclusion

This matter could easily have gone differently. A rushed application with insufficient evidence would likely have been refused. James and Maria would have spent thousands of dollars, waited over a year for a negative outcome, and faced the stress and uncertainty of deciding whether to pursue review.

Instead, they received honest advice at the start. They understood what was required. They took the time to build their evidence properly. And when the application was lodged, it was ready.

Suitability-first advice isn't about turning people away. It's about making sure that when matters proceed, they proceed properly.

Note: This success story reflects a real matter handled by My Migration Lawyers. Names and identifying details have been changed to protect client confidentiality. Individual outcomes depend on specific circumstances and cannot be guaranteed. Past results do not predict future outcomes.