If the Relationship Ends: 801 Pathways After Separation in 2026
Yes, but only through a narrow set of provisions. Under the Migration Regulations 1994, the Subclass 801 (Partner (Permanent)) visa can still be granted after a relationship has ended where the applicant has experienced family violence committed by the sponsoring partner, where the applicant has custody, access or maintenance obligations relating to a child of the sponsoring partner, or where the sponsoring partner has died. The text of these provisions is published on the Australian Government Federal Register of Legislation, and the Department of Home Affairs explains how they are applied in its PAM3 partner visa guidance. This page describes those rules in general terms; it is not an assessment of any individual case, and because the Regulations are amended over time, the current wording on those official pages is what governs a particular application.
What normally happens to an 801 application when you separate?
The default rule is unforgiving. Clause 801.221(2)(c) requires that, at the time of decision, the applicant is still the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner. The same continuing-relationship requirement sits at the temporary stage in clause 820.221(1). If you and your sponsoring partner have separated and none of the exceptions below applies, the 801 application no longer has a legal basis, and the associated Subclass 820 visa generally ceases when the 801 is refused.
That is why the three exceptions matter so much. Each one replaces the "still in the relationship" requirement with a different test rather than waiving assessment altogether.
Can the 801 still be granted after family violence?
Yes, under clause 801.221(6)(c)(i), where the applicant has experienced family violence committed by the sponsoring partner. The violence must meet the requirements of Division 1.5 of the Regulations, including regulation 1.23, and PAM3 guidance treats the violence as having to occur while the spouse or de facto relationship was still on foot. Notably, the violence does not have to be the reason the relationship ended — the causal link is not part of the test.
Evidence is the practical battleground. Departmental guidance describes the standard as independent evidence rather than a statement alone, and points to documents such as court orders, police reports and reports from professional bodies. Assume a decision-maker will read a bare personal account as insufficient.
There is also a timing benefit. If the Subclass 820 was granted on the basis of family violence under clause 820.221(3), the two-year waiting period can be dispensed with under clause 801.221(3)–(4).
What if I have children with the sponsoring partner?
Clause 801.221(6)(c)(ii) covers an applicant who has custody, access or a maintenance obligation relating to a child in relation to whom the sponsoring partner also has such a right or obligation. PAM3 guidance reads this as requiring a court order or formal maintenance obligation under the Family Law Act, not an informal arrangement between the parents.
So imagine an applicant who separated amicably and agreed with the sponsoring partner that the children would stay with them most weekends. Without a court order or a formal, documented maintenance obligation, that agreement is unlikely to satisfy the provision. The purpose PAM3 assigns to this pathway is to enable the parent-child relationship to continue, or to avoid the continuation of a violent relationship — the provision exists for the child's position, not as a general hardship exemption.
What if my sponsoring partner has died?
Clause 801.221(5) keeps the pathway open after the sponsoring partner's death. The applicant must satisfy the decision-maker that the relationship would have continued had the death not occurred. This is a forward-looking counterfactual, and it is assessed on evidence of the relationship up to the point of death rather than on assertions made afterwards.
PAM3 guidance adds a second element: the applicant's ties to Australia, assessed as close business, cultural or personal ties. Business ties are approached as an enterprise operating in Australia where withdrawal would cause substantial loss; cultural ties as participation in cultural or artistic activities; personal ties as ongoing interaction with family and friends in Australia. A death certificate and evidence of the relationship and shared life up to the death are the starting documents, not the finish line.
Do I still have to wait two years?
Often not. Clause 801.221(2)(d) requires at least two years to have passed since the application was made, but clause 801.221(6A) disapplies that wait for an applicant who, at the time of application, was in a long-term partner relationship with the sponsoring partner. Regulation 1.03 defines that concept, and PAM3 guidance treats a relationship of at least three years — or at least two years where there is a dependent child — as long-term.
Separately, PAM3 indicates that where the sponsoring partner has died, or where family violence or the child-related grounds are made out, the 801 can be granted ahead of the two-year mark. The waiting period is a hurdle on the ordinary path, not on the exception paths.
What still has to be true regardless of why the relationship ended?
The exceptions replace the relationship test; they do not replace everything else. The following continue to apply:
- Public interest criteria. Clause 801.223 requires criteria including 4001 to 4004, 4007 and 4009, plus 4019 where the applicant was 18 or over at the time of application.
- Character and health documentation. Police certificates are expected for countries where the applicant has lived for 12 months or more since the 820 was granted, and certificates are generally treated as valid for 12 months. Health assessment is usually not repeated if the 820 stage already produced an examination or waiver, unless there is new information, a fraud concern, or the 820 has been cancelled for more than 12 months.
- Integrity, under PIC 4020. A bogus document or misleading information can lead to refusal and, on the departmental material, to a multi-year exclusion.
- The sponsorship itself. The sponsorship must have been approved and remain effective, and the sponsoring partner must be an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.
- Family members. Under the "one fails, all fails" approach reflected in clause 801.224, every family member must satisfy the relevant public interest criteria before the principal applicant can be granted.
What makes applications like this fail?
The refusal patterns in departmental guidance are consistent. Family violence claims fail where the evidence does not meet Division 1.5. Child-related claims fail where custody rests on informal arrangements rather than Family Law Act orders or formal maintenance obligations. Sponsor-death claims fail where the applicant cannot show the relationship would have continued, or cannot show close business, cultural or personal ties in Australia.
Two more failure modes cut across all three: not responding to a request for further information, which allows a decision to be made on the material already held; and an integrity finding under PIC 4020. Keeping contact details current and answering requests on time is procedural, but it is also substantive, because an unanswered request can end the case.
What if the 801 is refused?
A refusal of the 801 can be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal, and the review application period is 21 days from notification. The right to apply is tied to being in Australia at the relevant time, which is worth knowing before any travel is planned while a decision is pending.
If the Tribunal remits the matter or substitutes a decision that the criteria other than holding a Subclass 820 are met, clause 801.221(8) allows the 801 to be granted without the applicant re-holding an 820.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still get the 801 if we separated with no violence and no children involved?
On the material above, no. Clause 801.221(2)(c) requires you to still be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner at decision time, and separation without a qualifying exception removes the legal basis for the grant.
Does the family violence have to be the reason the relationship broke down?
No. Departmental guidance treats the violence as needing to have occurred during the spouse or de facto relationship, but not as needing to have caused the separation.
Is a private agreement with my ex about the children enough for the child-related pathway?
Generally not. Clause 801.221(6)(c)(ii) is read against a court order or a formal maintenance obligation under the Family Law Act, so a verbal or informal arrangement is likely to be treated as insufficient.
My sponsoring partner died before the 801 was decided. What is the core test?
Clause 801.221(5) asks whether the relationship would have continued had the death not occurred. PAM3 guidance pairs that with an assessment of your close business, cultural or personal ties in Australia.
Do I have to serve the full two-year waiting period?
Not necessarily. The two-year requirement in clause 801.221(2)(d) is disapplied for long-term partner relationships under clause 801.221(6A), and departmental guidance allows early grant where the sponsor death, family violence or child-related grounds are established.
Can old criminal record or document problems override a valid family violence claim?
Yes. The public interest criteria apply independently, and a PIC 4020 finding on bogus documents or misleading information can lead to refusal regardless of how strong the family violence evidence is.
What happens to my Subclass 820 if the 801 is refused?
The 820 generally ceases when the 801 is refused, which is why the 21-day review window and the onshore requirement for review matter. If the Tribunal remits the 820 decision, the 801 should then be progressed.