One of the most frequent worries raised in viewers’ questions is whether a case officer puts a couple’s Instagram, Facebook and online history under the microscope. Negin Safaei, Australian migration lawyer with MARA registration number 1791573, uses this article to draw the precise line between “the Department of Home Affairs’ lawful power to verify information” and “systematic social media monitoring”, based on the text of the Regulations and official documents. The result is reassuring and, at the same time, strictly legal: a partner application is assessed against four statutory criteria, not against your digital footprint.
The short answer
The Department of Home Affairs has no published policy of routinely monitoring the social media of Partner visa applicants. However, under the privacy notice in Form 1442i, it does have lawful authority to collect information from third parties and other sources and to verify it through data matching. An obvious inconsistency between what the application states and what appears publicly can therefore be put to you. The final decision, though, is made under Regulation 1.15A and the assessment of “all the circumstances of the relationship”.
What the law says
The decision-making test in a Partner visa is whether the relationship is genuine and continuing, and the onus of proof sits with the applicant and the sponsor. It must be established that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others and that they do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.
Regulation 1.15A(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 makes clear that the Minister or delegate must consider “all the circumstances of the relationship”, including the matters listed in subregulation (3). Those four areas are the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship, and the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other. Note that “religion and religious belief” is not a free-standing criterion in that list; knowledge of each other’s religious beliefs can only become relevant indirectly, at the level of credibility and the examination of inconsistencies.
Within the social aspects, the legislation points to matters such as whether friends and acquaintances regard the parties as a couple, and the basis on which they plan and undertake joint social activities. This is precisely where an online footprint may become relevant to a case as one piece of evidence — not as an independent criterion: joint photographs, acknowledgement of the relationship in front of family and friends, or invitations to family events.
The power to collect information also has a formal source. The privacy notice in Form 1442i explains that, within the framework of the Privacy Act, the Department may exchange personal information with state and federal agencies and third parties and collect information from them; and that this exchange may be for the purpose of confirming identity, checking the authenticity of documents, data matching, or supporting another agency’s compliance and enforcement activities. This is a general verification power, not the announcement of a social media monitoring programme.
Another important legal point: if the statements in a partner application are inconsistent with an applicant’s earlier statements — for example in a protection visa application — the precise legal pathway is Public Interest Criterion PIC 4020 in Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The purpose of PIC 4020 is to deter the provision of a bogus document or false and misleading information in a “material particular”, and a refusal on that ground can trigger a 3-year or 10-year exclusion period for future visa applications. Against that risk there is a clear procedural right: if the Department considers information to be false or misleading, it must put that adverse information to the applicant before deciding and give a specified period in which to respond. In other words, no online finding, of itself and without a right of reply, becomes the basis of a refusal.
Criteria and practical boundaries: what is documented and what is not
| Issue | Legal position | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| “100 per cent” social media monitoring of every couple | Not published as a stated practice in any official document | Absence of any published document in official Department of Home Affairs sources |
| Collection and verification of information from third parties, and data matching | Expressly authorised by law | Privacy notice, Form 1442i |
| Criteria for assessing the relationship | Four areas: financial, household, social, nature of commitment — alongside “all the circumstances of the relationship” | Regulation 1.15A(2) and 1.15A(3) |
| Knowledge of each other’s religion and religious beliefs | Not an independent statutory criterion; relevant only to credibility | Regulation 1.15A(3) |
| Inconsistency with statements in earlier applications | May lead to PIC 4020 and a 3-year or 10-year exclusion | Schedule 4, PIC 4020 |
| Right to respond to adverse information | The Department must notify you before deciding and allow time to respond | PIC 4020 procedure |
| Unannounced home visits to Partner visa couples | Cannot be verified as a stated practice in official sources; the Department does have power to request further information and conduct interviews | Absence of any published document; general power to request information |
| “I can’t remember” during a phone call or interview | An incomplete answer is not, on its own, a legal ground for refusal | Regulation 1.15A(2) — duty to consider all the circumstances |
Three practical principles emerge from this table:
- Consistency matters more than volume. The Department is not counting your posts; it is looking for a coherent picture across the financial, household, social and commitment aspects.
- Anything you have published publicly is part of your narrative. The date you met, where you live and the relationship status you declare on the forms must not be in obvious conflict with what is publicly available.
- Your right of reply is real and usable. If you receive a letter containing adverse information, that is not the end of the road; it is the entry point to a properly documented legal response.
What this means for you
If you are reading this article with some anxiety, here is the good news: your application is not refused or approved because of “surveillance” — it is approved because of coherence. As Negin Safaei explains, the delegate’s legal duty is to weigh all the circumstances of the relationship within the framework of Regulation 1.15A; so neither a forgotten answer in a phone call nor the absence of joint photographs on social media is, on its own, a legal ground for refusal. What genuinely puts an application at risk is a conflict in statements on a “material particular”, which can open the door to PIC 4020 and a 3-year or 10-year exclusion — and this is exactly where a careful documentation strategy from the outset changes the entire journey.
In practice that means: before you lodge, reconcile your dates and your relationship narrative with every earlier statement you have made within the Australian migration system; build balanced evidence across the four statutory areas; and where there is a historical inconsistency, raise it proactively with a documented explanation rather than after the Department’s letter arrives. Negin Safaei, as a MARA-registered lawyer with registration number 1791573, runs partner applications on exactly this legal logic — grounded in the text of the Regulations and making full use of the applicant’s procedural rights.
Sources
- Form 1442i — Privacy notice, Department of Home Affairs: immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/form-listing/forms/1442i.pdf
- Migration Regulations 1994 — Regulation 1.15A (Spouse) and 1.15A(3) criteria, Federal Register of Legislation: legislation.gov.au — Migration Regulations 1994
- Migration Regulations 1994 — Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4020, Federal Register of Legislation: legislation.gov.au — Schedule 4 PIC 4020
- Partner visa (subclass 820/801) — relationship requirements, Department of Home Affairs: immi.homeaffairs.gov.au — Partner visa (Temporary) 820
- Register of Migration Agents, Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority: mara.gov.au
Your case, without the guesswork
If you are unsure whether your relationship narrative lines up with your earlier statements, or you have received a letter from the Department and have a window in which to respond, you do not have to decide alone. In a dedicated consultation with Negin Safaei, Australian migration lawyer (MARA 1791573), we review your evidence across the four statutory areas of Regulation 1.15A, identify the PIC 4020 risk points, and set out a clear, workable roadmap for your partner application. To book a consultation, send a message today through the office’s official contact channels and set out your question with the details of your case.
Frequently asked questions
Does Australian immigration really check Partner visa applicants’ Instagram and Facebook?
There is no published policy in any official document about routine monitoring of partner applicants’ social media. However, under the privacy notice in Form 1442i, the Department has lawful authority to collect information from third parties and other sources and to verify it through data matching; so an obvious inconsistency between what your application states and what appears publicly can be put to you.
If we have no joint photos or posts on social media, will our Partner visa be refused?
No. The legal test is the four areas in Regulation 1.15A(3): the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment. The presence or absence of online content is not an independent statutory criterion, and the delegate is required to consider “all the circumstances of the relationship”.
Do I have to know everything about my partner’s religious beliefs?
Religion and religious belief are not a free-standing criterion in Regulation 1.15A(3). The issue can only arise indirectly, at the level of credibility and the examination of inconsistencies — not as a separate legal requirement.
What happens if our statements differ from an earlier protection visa application?
The relevant legal pathway is PIC 4020 in Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which targets the provision of a bogus document or false and misleading information in a material particular; a refusal on that basis can trigger a 3-year or 10-year exclusion. Even so, the Department must put the adverse information to the applicant before deciding and allow a specified period to respond.
Will an immigration officer turn up unannounced at the couple’s home?
Unannounced home visits to Partner visa couples cannot be verified as a stated practice in official sources. What is documented is the Department’s power to request further information and to conduct interviews.
I forgot the answer to a question in the phone interview — have I ruined the application?
An incomplete answer or a one-off lapse of memory is not, on its own, a legal ground for refusal, because under Regulation 1.15A(2) the delegate must assess all the circumstances of the relationship as a whole, not a single answer in isolation.
This answer reflects the law and policy as verified on September 29, 2026. Immigration rules change frequently — confirm the current position before acting.
Mrs. Negin Safaee Registered Migration Agent 1791573
This article is general information only, current at the date shown, and is not legal advice. Do not rely on it for your own situation — immigration law and policy change frequently. Seek advice from a registered migration agent or immigration lawyer about your circumstances.