How a couple met — online, through social media, or in person — is nowhere stated in Australian migration law as a criterion for approval or refusal. The assessment is made under regulation 1.15A(3) and sections 5F/5CB: the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects, and the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other. A relationship that is genuine and continuing can be established no matter where it began.
Negin Safaei, an Australian migration lawyer with MARA registration number 1791573, regards this as one of the most frequently raised concerns among Iranian applicants, and her answer is unambiguous: nowhere has the Australian legislator asked where or how you met. What the decision-maker at the Department is required to weigh is “all of the circumstances of the relationship”, including the matters prescribed in subregulation (3).
Another important point is the role of the relationship narrative. A relationship history statement — the so-called “Love Story” — is not a legal requirement; it is one piece of evidence among others, and its basis can be found in Form 1496i and regulation 1.15A. Its value lies in its coherence and consistency with the rest of the evidence, not in its emotional prose.
When it comes to meeting in person, a distinction must be drawn between two groups of visas. For subclasses 820/801 (onshore) and 309/100 (offshore), “meeting in person” is not an express legal criterion, although evidentially it carries considerable weight. For the Prospective Marriage visa subclass 300, however, the requirement is explicit: the parties must have met in person and be “known to each other personally” — clause 300.214(2). A relationship in which the couple have never met face to face therefore has, in practical terms, no pathway to a subclass 300 visa.
An important practical warning for the de facto stream: as a general rule, a de facto relationship must have existed for twelve months before the application is lodged — unless the relationship is registered or a prescribed exception applies. Accordingly, a relationship that has never moved beyond the online phase and has never developed into genuine cohabitation or a shared life will not, in practice, satisfy this requirement. This distinction between “meeting online” and a “purely online relationship” is precisely the line that determines the outcome of many applications.
Two further common beliefs also need correcting. First, there is no legal obligation for the sponsor to have sent money or gifts before the application is lodged; such evidence is merely one indicator under the “financial aspects” in regulation 1.15A(3)(a), and its absence alone does not lead to refusal. Second, the claim of a “very high refusal rate” for partner visas cannot be verified against official statistics; the Department of Home Affairs does not publish a partner-specific refusal rate, and program reporting counts grants only (ANAO 16/2022–23). The accurate way to put it is that a partner application is “highly sensitive to the quality and consistency of the evidence”.
If your relationship began online and you want to know which pathway and which documents will put your application on the strongest footing, a short, focused conversation with a registered practitioner can give you peace of mind and a clear road map; to have your own case assessed personally, please get in touch with the office of Negin Safaei.
Read the full legal breakdown ←
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.