Do We Have to Have Met in Person for a Subclass 300 Visa in 2026?
Yes. If you are applying for the Prospective Marriage visa (Subclass 300), you and your prospective spouse must have met in person as adults since turning 18, and you must be known to each other personally at the time you apply. This is set out on the Department of Home Affairs' official Prospective Marriage visa (subclass 300) page (as at the July 2026 official page), and it reflects clause 300.214 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which states that the applicant and the prospective spouse have met in person since each of them turned 18. Nothing in the criteria offers a substitute for that meeting, so a relationship conducted entirely online does not satisfy the rule on its own.
This article is general information only and is not advice about your individual situation; how the criteria are applied depends on your own circumstances and evidence, so check the official page for the current wording and get professional input before you lodge if you are unsure.
What exactly does clause 300.214 require?
Clause 300.214 has two limbs, and both have to be met. The first is the meeting itself: the two of you were physically in the same place at some point after each of you had turned 18. The second is separate — you are known to each other personally when the application is lodged.
The wording "since each of them turned 18" matters for couples who met young. A relationship that began at school, or a meeting that happened while one partner was still 17, does not count toward this criterion. What is needed is at least one meeting that took place after both of you were adults.
The Migration Regulations 1994 also require that both the applicant and the sponsoring prospective spouse are 18 or older at the time of application, and that the applicant is outside Australia when lodging. These sit alongside the meeting requirement rather than replacing it.
Does video calling, messaging or a virtual ceremony count?
No. Electronic contact is not a meeting for this purpose. Departmental policy guidance (PAM3) summarises the position confirmed by the Full Federal Court in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Yucesan: meeting in person means physical presence together. Video calls, messaging, voice notes and online ceremonies are useful evidence that a relationship exists, but they do not satisfy clause 300.214 on their own.
This is the point where many online couples get caught out. Years of daily contact can make a relationship feel well documented, but the criterion is not about how well you communicate — it is about whether you have stood in the same room as adults.
What does "known to each other personally" add?
It is a distinct requirement, not a restatement of the meeting rule. It asks whether the two of you actually know one another as people, rather than having only crossed paths. PAM3 guidance notes that no particular depth of knowledge is specified and the standard varies by case, but that knowing very little about each other can weigh against the separate assessment in clause 300.216 — whether you genuinely intend to live together as spouses.
That link is the practical risk for couples whose contact has been mostly online. A short meeting can clear clause 300.214, but a thin understanding of each other's life, family and circumstances can still make the genuineness assessment harder.
Why does the meeting rule matter beyond ticking a box?
Because the same facts feed several criteria. Clause 300.215 requires that you genuinely intend to marry and that the marriage is intended to take place within the visa period; clause 300.216 requires that the Minister is satisfied you genuinely intend to live together as spouses. Departmental guidance assesses clause 300.216 by reference to the definition of spouse in section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 — a shared commitment, an exclusive relationship, and a genuine and continuing one — and treats the factors in regulation 1.15A as policy guidance rather than a direct legal test.
Failing the meeting requirement is not a minor gap that can be balanced out elsewhere. Departmental policy guidance (PAM3) lists "the parties have not met in person after turning 18" as the most common reason for refusal, because clause 300.214 is a gateway criterion: if it is not met, the application does not reach the rest of the assessment.
What if we have met, but only briefly?
Suppose an applicant and their prospective spouse met online, then spent four days together in a third country before one of them had to return home. On the face of clause 300.214, that meeting qualifies — the requirement is that you met in person as adults, not that you met for any particular length of time.
The difficulty is evidential rather than legal. A brief visit produces fewer records, and the case officer still has to be satisfied about the genuineness criteria. This is why Departmental policy guidance (PAM3) repeatedly stresses keeping material that places you in the same place at the same time: photographs together, travel bookings, accommodation records, and records of the trip itself. No single item proves it alone; what helps is a set of records that line up into one consistent timeline.
What evidence usually shows the meeting happened?
The Department's official page does not publish a fixed document list for this criterion, but Departmental policy guidance (PAM3) consistently points to the same categories: joint photographs, travel and entry records, accommodation records, and communication records showing the relationship before and after the visit. Wedding-related material — such as an authorised marriage celebrant's letter confirming a date or date range, venue, and that a Notice of Intended Marriage has been lodged — belongs to the marriage-intention criteria rather than to the meeting requirement.
Two cautions follow from the guidance. First, single pieces of evidence are rarely decisive on their own; consistency across the material carries more weight. Second, evidence is assessed as a whole, so anything that contradicts the story you are telling — mismatched dates, gaps that cannot be explained — tends to do more damage than an extra photo does good.
What happens if we apply without having met?
The application cannot satisfy clause 300.214, and the requirement continues to apply at the time of decision through clause 300.221. In other words, meeting after you lodge does not fix an application that was not eligible when it was made; the criterion has to be satisfied both when you apply and when the decision is made.
Because the meeting requirement is assessed alongside sponsorship, health, character and the genuineness criteria, an application that fails at clause 300.214 simply does not proceed. The general guidance therefore is to travel and meet first, and to lodge once the meeting has actually happened and can be documented.
Practical points for couples who met online
- Meet in person before you lodge, and keep the records from that trip.
- Check the timing: both of you need to have been 18 or older at the time of the meeting.
- Expect the meeting to be read together with the genuineness criteria, not in isolation.
- Plan the wedding for within the visa period — the Subclass 300 visa is granted for 9 to 15 months from the date of grant, and the marriage is intended to take place within that window.
- Remember that you must be outside Australia when you apply, and that your prospective spouse's sponsorship must be approved.
Details such as processing times, current charges and documentary checklists change.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we apply for a Subclass 300 visa if we have never met in person?
No. The Department of Home Affairs' official page requires that you and your prospective spouse have met in person as adults since turning 18, and that you are known to each other personally when you apply. This mirrors clause 300.214 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which contains no alternative to an in-person meeting.
Does a video call or an online wedding count as meeting in person?
No. Departmental policy guidance records the Full Federal Court's position in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Yucesan that meeting in person requires physical presence together. Electronic contact is evidence of a relationship, but it does not satisfy clause 300.214.
Do we both need to have been over 18 at the meeting, or is one of us enough?
Both. The criterion is that you met in person since each of you turned 18, so a meeting that took place while either partner was still 17 does not count. The Migration Regulations 1994 also require both the applicant and the sponsor to be 18 or older at the time of application.
Is there a minimum length of time we must have known each other?
No fixed period is specified. PAM3 guidance says the "known to each other personally" standard varies by case, but that knowing very little about each other can weigh against the assessment of whether you genuinely intend to live together as spouses under clause 300.216.
What evidence can show that we met in person?
Commonly used material includes joint photographs, travel and entry records, accommodation records, and communication records covering the period before and after the visit. The Department's official page does not publish a mandatory list for this criterion, so the aim is to show a consistent timeline rather than rely on one document.
We met online and only spent a few days together — is that a problem?
A short meeting can still satisfy clause 300.214, because the criterion requires a meeting, not a minimum duration. The practical risk is evidential: fewer records, and a harder path to satisfying the genuineness criteria about your intention to marry and live together as spouses.
What if we get married while the application is still being decided?
Departmental guidance treats this as a problem for a Subclass 300 application, because the marriage is no longer "prospective" at the time of decision. The guidance notes the case may instead be considered as a partner visa application, so the change should be notified in writing and checked against the currently published official requirements.