Ministerial intervention is what is left after the Administrative Review Tribunal has affirmed a partner visa refusal. For a partner visa it is section 351 of the Migration Act 1958: if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest, the Minister may substitute, for a decision of the Tribunal, another decision that is more favourable to the applicant — even a decision the Tribunal itself had no power to make. It is not an appeal, nobody is obliged to look at your request, and most requests come to nothing.
Which section applies
Section 351 is the partner visa provision. It operates on decisions of the Tribunal on reviewable migration decisions, including a decision to affirm the refusal of an 820.
You will still see section 417 referred to in older guides, older letters and older legal writing. Section 417 was repealed in 2024. It was the protection visa equivalent, and that power is now in section 501J of the Act, which is structured the same way but applies only to Tribunal decisions about protection visas. The Migration Regulations 1994 now refer to visas granted "under section 351 or 501J, or repealed section 417", which is a useful marker of how the three relate. Nothing in section 417 ever applied to a partner visa refusal, so material telling a partner visa applicant to "request 417 intervention" was wrong even before the repeal.
What kind of power it is
Three features of section 351 decide how you should think about it.
It is personal. The Act says the power may only be exercised by the Minister personally. A departmental officer cannot exercise it. Officers assess requests against the guidelines and decide which ones are put in front of the Minister, but the decision itself is not delegable.
It is non-compellable. Section 351 states that the Minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise the power in respect of any decision, whether or not requested to do so by the applicant or anyone else. There is no right to have a request considered, no right to reasons if it is not, and no merits review of a refusal to consider. This is the single most misunderstood feature of the process.
It is exceptional by design. The only statutory test is the public interest, and the Minister is not bound by the visa criteria in the regulations when substituting a decision. To balance that, the Act requires the Minister to lay a statement before each House of Parliament whenever the power is used, setting out the Tribunal's decision, the substituted decision and the reasons — without naming the applicant. A power that is reported to Parliament case by case is not a power that gets used often.
Important
This is the end of the road, not another rung on the ladder. Merits review at the Tribunal is where a partner visa case is won or lost. If your refusal letter still gives you a review right, use it — see ART deadlines and fees — and do not treat intervention as a fallback for a deadline you let pass.
When a request can be made
The power attaches to a decision of the Tribunal. In practice that means a Tribunal decision has to exist first. If the Tribunal has not yet decided, there is nothing to substitute a decision for. If a review application was lodged out of time and so was never validly made, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and produces no decision of the kind section 351 operates on — which is another reason the appealing at the ART deadline matters so much.
The Department publishes guidelines setting out the kinds of cases that are to be referred to the Minister and the kinds that are not. Those guidelines are administrative, not law: they describe when officers will bring a case forward, and the Minister is not bound by them. They are the document to read before writing anything, and they are published on the Department's website rather than in the legislation.
What a request does not do
- It is not a visa application. No application charge, no criteria, no decision you are entitled to.
- It does not give you a visa. Even a successful request results in the Minister substituting a decision, after which the visa may be granted.
- It does not give you a bridging visa as of right. Whether you hold a bridging visa, and with what work rights, is governed by the bridging visa rules and not by the existence of a request. Many people lodging a request are already unlawful non-citizens, with all that follows from that.
- It does not stop removal. Lodging a request does not, by itself, suspend anything.
What people usually put in a request
Because the test is the public interest and the guidelines speak of unique or exceptional circumstances, a request is not an argument that the Tribunal got the law wrong. That argument belongs in judicial review. A request is an account of why this case is out of the ordinary. The material commonly included is:
- the Tribunal's decision and the refusal letter, so the Minister's officers can see what has already been decided;
- circumstances that have changed since the Tribunal decided — a child born, a diagnosis, a death in the family, a partner's health;
- the effect of the outcome on Australian citizens or permanent residents, especially children, with independent evidence rather than assertion;
- strong and long-standing ties to Australia, including the length of the relationship and the sponsor's circumstances;
- country conditions or personal circumstances making return genuinely unsafe or unusually harsh, where that is the case;
- supporting material from doctors, psychologists, schools, employers and community organisations, dated and signed.
What does not help: repeating the evidence the Tribunal has already weighed, general statements about hardship, or anything the Minister's officers can see is untrue. The threshold is not sympathy. It is that the case is genuinely unlike others.
If a request succeeds
The Minister substitutes a more favourable decision, and the visa can follow. The regulations then pick the case up: where the Minister has decided under section 351 to grant a subclass 820 visa, the permanent subclass 801 permanent visa stage is reached two years after the date of the Minister's decision, rather than two years after the original application was made. That is a real difference in timing and it is worth knowing before you plan around it.
Where professional help matters here
A request that is not written to the published guidelines is usually not referred to the Minister at all, and the applicant never learns why. An Australian migration lawyer will tell you plainly whether your circumstances fall within the guidelines, will say so if they do not, and will put the request together around the material that is actually capable of making the case unique. A request prepared that way is more likely to succeed, though the honest position is that very few succeed at all, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
What to do next: if the Tribunal has not decided yet, put your effort there and read appealing at the ART. If it has, compare intervention against reapplying after a refusal before you spend anything, and read working with a migration lawyer on choosing someone.
Common questions
Which section applies to a partner visa?
Section 351 of the Migration Act 1958. It lets the Minister substitute a more favourable decision for a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal on a reviewable migration decision, if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest. Section 417, which people still refer to, was repealed in 2024; the equivalent power for protection visas is now section 501J.
Do I have to go to the Tribunal first?
In practice yes. The power in section 351 operates on a decision of the Tribunal, so there normally has to be a Tribunal decision for the Minister to substitute something more favourable for. A request made before the Tribunal has decided, or where the review was lodged out of time and so was never validly made, generally has nothing for the power to attach to.
Does the Minister have to consider my request?
No. Section 351 states expressly that the Minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise the power in respect of any decision, whether or not the applicant or anyone else asks. There is no right to have a request considered, and a decision not to consider it is not a decision that can be reviewed on the merits.
Does asking for intervention let me stay in Australia?
Not by itself. A request is not a visa application and does not create any lawful status. Whether you hold a bridging visa, and on what conditions, is decided under the separate bridging visa rules, not by the fact that a request has been lodged. Many people who lodge a request are not lawful non-citizens at the time.
How often does it succeed?
Rarely. The power is described in the published guidelines as being for unique or exceptional circumstances, the Minister must table a statement in Parliament each time the power is used, and the overwhelming majority of requests do not result in a visa. Treat it as a last resort, not as another level of appeal.
Sources
Keep reading
Appealing an 820 Refusal at the ART
How review of an 820 partner visa refusal works at the Administrative Review Tribunal: who can apply, the strict deadline, the fee, the hearing and the outcomes.
Read the guide →
ART Deadlines and Fees for Partner Visa Reviews
The time limit for applying to the ART after a partner visa refusal, how notification is counted, the review fee, the hardship reduction and the refunds.
Read the guide →
Reapplying After an 820 Refusal
Whether you can lodge a second 820 after a refusal, how the section 48 bar works, what a PIC 4020 refusal blocks, and when the offshore 309 is the better path.
Read the guide →