One of the most frequent concerns raised during the live programme is exactly this: a couple who met in a third country, with the sponsor never having travelled to the applicant’s country. Negin Safaei, an Australian migration lawyer registered as MARA 1791573, sets out here precisely the framework a case officer at the Department of Home Affairs applies — not according to popular belief, but according to the text of the Migration Regulations 1994. For many readers the conclusion is reassuring: where you met is not a legal criterion.
The short answer
No — Australian migration law contains no requirement that the sponsor must have travelled to the applicant’s country. For the Prospective Marriage visa (subclass 300), the legal requirement is that the parties have met in person and know each other personally, as adults (both aged 18 or over at the time of the meeting); a meeting in a third country such as Turkey, Thailand or Malaysia is entirely sufficient. For a Partner visa, the test is a “genuine and continuing relationship”. An online acquaintance alone does not substitute for meeting in person.
What the law says
These applications are assessed along two different pathways, and distinguishing between them is the key to understanding the issue.
1) Prospective Marriage visa — subclass 300. The requirement in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (clause 300.215) is that the applicant and the sponsor have met in person and know each other personally — an element reflected in the same terms in the document checklists published by Australian Government posts: “evidence that you and your fiancé(e) have met in person and know each other personally as adults”. Three legal points are embedded in that single sentence:
- No particular country is specified. The law speaks of “meeting in person”, not of “travelling to the applicant’s country”. A meeting in a third country, in Australia, or anywhere else is equally valid.
- The “as adults” element. A meeting that occurred only in childhood — for example, cousins who met at the age of 10 and whose relationship then continued online — does not satisfy this requirement. Both parties must have been 18 or over at the time of the meeting.
- An online meeting is not enough. Video calls, messages and phone calls are valuable evidence of the nature of a relationship, but they do not replace the in-person requirement.
Alongside this, the subclass 300 visa requires a genuine intention to marry and an intention to live together as spouses; the Department of Home Affairs describes this visa as a means of allowing you to come to Australia to marry your fiancé(e) and then apply for permanent residence.
2) Partner visa — subclass 309/100 (outside Australia) and subclass 820/801 (in Australia). Here the decisive test is the existence of a “genuine and continuing relationship”, assessed against the four areas prescribed by regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994: the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship, and the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other. For de facto applicants, the relationship must in addition generally have existed for at least 12 months before lodgement, unless the relationship is registered under the law of a qualifying Australian State or Territory, or compelling circumstances are established. The subclass 309 pathway is the provisional stage, leading to the permanent subclass 100 visa.
An important point: not having travelled to each other’s countries is not of itself a negative factor, but where a couple has never lived together and there have been no reciprocal visits, the evidentiary burden falls more heavily on the other three pillars: the continuity and depth of communication, the length and quality of the time you have actually spent together, and the social recognition of the relationship by family and friends.
Key criteria and practical points at a glance
| Issue | Legal position | Practical point |
|---|---|---|
| Travelling to the partner’s country | Not a legal requirement | Any meeting place is valid; it simply has to be documented |
| Meeting in person (subclass 300) | Mandatory — clause 300.215 | Cannot be made good by online contact |
| Age at the time of meeting (300) | Both parties 18 or over | A childhood meeting does not satisfy the requirement |
| 12-month relationship (de facto) | General rule; exceptions apply for registered relationships or compelling circumstances | Must be carefully structured in cases with no cohabitation |
| Family ceremony / engagement celebration | Not a legal criterion — only “evidence” | Has evidentiary value, but does not replace a legal requirement |
| Legal marriage before a decision on the 300 | Eligibility for the 300 comes to an end | You must request in writing that the application be assessed as a 309/100 and withdraw the 300 |
Let us pause on that last row, because it is a source of costly mistakes in Iranian cases: if a subclass 300 applicant enters into a legally valid marriage before a decision is made — for example a religious marriage registered in Iran — they are no longer eligible for the Prospective Marriage visa. In that situation, according to official Australian Government guidance, the applicant must request in writing that the application be assessed as a Partner visa subclass 309/100 and withdraw the subclass 300 application. So if you are planning a ceremony outside Australia in order to strengthen your case, that ceremony must be non-binding and purely ceremonial/an engagement; otherwise, the 309/100 pathway should be chosen from the outset.
A practical warning, too, about meeting in a third country: this approach only works where both parties can lawfully enter that country and can document the trip — visas, entry and exit stamps, tickets and accommodation bookings, dated photographs and bank receipts. A meeting that cannot be proved is treated, for the purposes of the application, as though it never happened.
What this means for you
If the opportunity to travel to each other’s countries has not yet arisen, you can breathe easy: in itself this is neither a legal barrier nor a mark against you in the assessment. What matters, as Negin Safaei explains, is that the application is written precisely in the language of the legal criteria — meeting in person as adults for the subclass 300, and the four areas of regulation 1.15A for the Partner visa — and that every claim is supported by verifiable evidence.
In practice, applications involving couples who met in a third country, or who have not yet lived together, are entirely defensible when properly structured: an orderly chronology of the relationship, a curated archive of communications rather than a mass of disordered screenshots, full documentation of every trip, consistent personal statements, and social recognition of the relationship by both families. Experience in handling Partner and Prospective Marriage applications for Persian-speaking clients in this office shows that the difference between approval and refusal usually lies not in “where we met”, but in how the evidence is presented and how coherent it is. Choosing the right pathway from day one — subclass 300 or 309/100 — is likewise a decision best reviewed with a MARA-registered lawyer before lodgement.
Sources
- Prospective Marriage visa (subclass 300) — Department of Home Affairs: immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/prospective-marriage-300
- Partner visa (provisional) subclass 309 and Partner visa (migrant) subclass 100 — Department of Home Affairs: immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/partner-offshore/provisional-309
- Migration Regulations 1994 (regulation 1.09A, regulation 1.15A and Schedule 2 — clause 300.215) — Federal Register of Legislation: legislation.gov.au/F1996B00539/latest/text
- Prospective Marriage visa (subclass 300) document checklist — Australian Government post/embassy checklist: immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/prospective-marriage-300
- Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) — Register of Migration Agents: mara.gov.au
Your application, with a clear roadmap
Every relationship has its own story: a meeting in Turkey, years of long-distance contact, or families who have still never met face to face. In a dedicated one-on-one consultation conducted in Persian, Negin Safaei, an Australian migration lawyer registered as MARA 1791573, will measure your circumstances against the real criteria in the law, identify the right pathway as between the Prospective Marriage visa and the Partner visa, and give you a document list that responds precisely to the weak points in your case. Before you lodge, one hour of careful discussion can save you months of waiting and the cost of applying twice — contact Negin Safaei’s office to arrange a consultation.
Frequently asked questions
Does the sponsor have to travel to the applicant’s country?
No. Australian migration law does not prescribe where you must meet. Meeting in person in a third country such as Turkey, Thailand or Malaysia carries exactly the same weight as travelling to the applicant’s country, and the sponsor not having travelled is not, of itself, a negative factor in the assessment.
Is a childhood meeting enough for the Prospective Marriage visa (subclass 300)?
No. The requirement is that the parties have met in person and know each other personally as adults — that is, both aged 18 or over at the time of the meeting. A meeting that occurred only in childhood does not satisfy this requirement.
Can meeting and communicating online substitute for meeting in person?
Not for the Prospective Marriage visa (subclass 300). Online communication is highly valuable evidence of the nature and continuity of a relationship, but it does not remove the requirement to have met in person.
What happens if we marry before a decision is made on the subclass 300?
If that ceremony constitutes a legally valid marriage, you are no longer eligible for the subclass 300 visa. In that case you must request in writing that your application be assessed as a Partner visa subclass 309/100 and withdraw the subclass 300 application. A non-binding engagement or ceremonial event does not create this problem.
If we have never lived together and never travelled to each other’s countries, can the application still be strengthened?
Yes. For the Partner visa, the test is a “genuine and continuing relationship” assessed against the four areas of regulation 1.15A, and de facto applicants generally need 12 months of relationship or a registered relationship. Where there is no cohabitation, the evidence of communication, time spent together and social recognition of the relationship must be presented more strongly and in a more organised way.
What documents are needed to prove a meeting in a third country?
The visa for that country, passport entry and exit stamps, tickets and boarding passes, accommodation bookings and receipts, dated photographs of you together, and bank transactions from the same period. A meeting that is not documented has, in practice, no effect in the assessment.
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.