Subclass 820 vs 309: Onshore and Offshore Partner Visas

In short: The Subclass 820/801 is the onshore partner visa pair and the Subclass 309/100 is the offshore pair. The difference between them is geographic: where the applicant was when the application was lodged. Both are two-stage visas, both carry a single combined application charge covering the provisional and permanent stages, and both apply exactly the same evidentiary standard to the relationship. For most couples the choice is not really a choice at all, because it is determined by where the applicant is and what visa they currently hold. Where a couple genuinely does have both options, one thing now separates them: under Ministerial Direction 117 on family visa priorities, an onshore 820 sits in a higher processing group than an offshore 309 on identical evidence.

The numbers describe geography, not quality

People spend a surprising amount of energy trying to work out which pathway is “better” on its merits. On the evidence, the premise is wrong: neither is a stronger application than the other. On processing order it is not, and that part is dealt with further down.

Subclass 820 and 801 are the onshore pair. You apply from inside Australia, the provisional 820 is granted, and the permanent 801 follows roughly two years later.

Subclass 309 and 100 are the offshore pair. You apply from outside Australia, the provisional 309 is granted, and the permanent 100 follows on the same rhythm.

That is the difference. Not the strength of your case, not the quality of your relationship, not your likelihood of success. Where you were standing.

Both pairs share the same architecture: two stages, one combined application charge covering both, and a permanent stage assessed later on updated evidence.

The evidentiary standard is identical

This deserves stating plainly, because a persistent myth says otherwise.

The evidentiary requirements are the same on both pathways. Applying onshore when the relationship is very new does not lower the bar, and it is one of the more common misconceptions we correct. The Department is testing the same thing either way: whether the relationship is genuine and continuing.

On both pathways the leading reason for refusal is the same, namely insufficient evidence of a genuine and continuing relationship, and specifically inadequate shared financial and social evidence.

One practical lever applies to both: where a state or territory registry allows you to register your relationship, doing so adds real weight to the application. It is a small administrative act with a disproportionate evidentiary return.

What the onshore pathway actually gives you

The onshore route buys one thing, and it is a significant one: you stay in Australia while the application is decided.

You must hold a valid substantive visa when you lodge. On lodgement a Bridging A visa is issued automatically, which keeps you lawfully present once your current visa expires.

Two conditions on that convenience are worth knowing before you rely on it.

Work rights are not automatic on every Bridging A visa. Check the conditions on your own grant rather than assuming.

Travel requires a Bridging B. Leaving Australia on a Bridging A can cause it to cease, which leaves you outside the country partway through an onshore application. If travel is likely, whether for work or family, plan the Bridging B before booking.

What the offshore pathway actually gives you

The offshore route is colder but cleaner.

You wait outside Australia and hold no Australian status while you do. There is no bridging visa, because there is nothing to bridge, and therefore none of the bridging visa risk that damages so many onshore applications.

You must be outside Australia when you lodge, but you may be in or outside Australia when the Department decides your temporary visa application. The grant does not force you to be offshore on a particular day, so travel near the decision point does not need choreographing the way it is often described.

Where the offshore route does cost you is priority. Under Ministerial Direction 117 on family visa priorities, an onshore Subclass 820 now sits in a higher processing group than an offshore Subclass 309 with identical relationship evidence. So the two are no longer broadly comparable at the provisional stage: on current settings, choosing offshore means accepting a lower place in the order as well as the separation.

That is the part of the current settings that lands hardest on partner visa clients, and it is worth weighing before treating the two routes as interchangeable on timing.

Why the choice is usually made for you

Once you strip away the myths, the decision resolves quickly.

If you are outside Australia, the offshore pathway is the only one available to you.

If you are in Australia on a valid substantive visa, and nothing on that visa bars a further application, the onshore route is normally the sensible one, because it lets you stay together while you wait and, on current settings, because it sits in a higher processing group under Ministerial Direction 117.

Two complications are worth checking rather than assuming. Some visa conditions restrict what you can apply for while onshore, so confirm your specific conditions before planning around them. And an expiring substantive visa is a common trigger for lodging sooner than you would otherwise choose, which is a good reason to start preparing evidence well before the expiry date rather than in the final month.

Not sure which pathway your circumstances point to? The eligibility check takes about a minute. For a considered read on your visa conditions and your evidence, speak to one of our MARA-registered advisers.

De facto and married couples

Both pathways cover married couples and de facto couples. There is no separate subclass for one or the other.

De facto couples normally need to demonstrate twelve months of cohabitation before lodging. There are two well-known routes around that requirement: registering the relationship with a state or territory registry where that option exists, or establishing compelling and compassionate circumstances. Registration is the more reliable of the two and, as noted above, strengthens the evidence in its own right.

Where the Prospective Marriage visa fits

The Subclass 300 sits before either pathway rather than alongside them. It is for engaged couples who are not yet married and cannot conveniently marry before applying, and it sits alongside the other Australian visa routes.

It is lodged and granted offshore. The holder travels to Australia, marries within the visa period, and then applies onshore for the Subclass 820/801.

One difference matters for planning: the Subclass 300 is a separate application, not the first half of a combined one, so a further application charge falls due at the partner visa stage. The combined pairs do not work that way.

Common mistakes

Believing the onshore route is easier to obtain. The evidentiary standard is identical. What does differ is processing priority under Ministerial Direction 117, which is a queue position rather than a lower bar.
Lodging onshore without a valid substantive visa. The onshore pathway depends on it.
Leaving Australia on a Bridging A without a Bridging B.
Not registering a de facto relationship where the state or territory allows it.
Going quiet. Address changes and periods of separation need to be notified to the Department on both pathways.

Conclusion

Which subclass applies to you is a function of where you are and what visa you hold. It is close to a mechanical question, and it is worth resolving quickly so you can stop researching it.

What is not mechanical, and what genuinely decides these applications, is the evidence. Both pathways test the same thing to the same standard, and both fail for the same reason. That is where the effort belongs.

If you would like your circumstances and your evidence assessed before you lodge, our MARA-registered advisers can do that in writing.

Subclass 820 or 309: onshore and offshore partner visas explained