870 visa funds evidence in 2026: what case officers look for

For a Subclass 870 (Sponsored Parent (Temporary)) visa, the funds test is not a published dollar threshold but a requirement that you have, or have access to, enough money to support yourself during your stay and to leave Australia; case officers assess this through itemised personal bank statements covering a three-month period, tax records, and pension or other regular income streams. According to the Australian Department of Home Affairs official page for the Sponsored Parent (Temporary) visa (Subclass 870), as of August 2026, an applicant must "have, or have access to, enough money to support yourself while you are in Australia," and the supporting document list asks for proof of enough money for your stay and to leave. The Migration Regulations 1994 (clause 870.222) requires the applicant to have enough money to pay for expenses during the stay, and the procedures advice manual (PAM3) identifies insufficient funds as a common refusal ground. This article is general information only and does not constitute personalised professional advice; your circumstances should be checked against the latest official publication or the opinion of a qualified professional.

What does the 870 visa funds requirement actually say?

The starting point is clause 870.222 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to have enough money to pay for expenses during the intended stay in Australia. The Home Affairs official page states the same condition in plainer terms: you must have, or have access to, enough money to support yourself while you are in Australia. The requirement is expressed as access and sufficiency, not as ownership of a set sum, and the official page does not publish a dollar figure for the 870 visa in the eligibility or document steps reviewed here.

Is there a set amount I have to show?

No published dollar amount appears in the official criteria. The evidence the Department asks for is functional: proof you have enough money for your stay and to leave Australia. Under Step 2 of the application, the listed examples are itemised personal bank statements showing a three-month period, tax records, and pension or other regular income streams. Because the visa can be granted for up to five years, the funds picture has to make sense for the length of stay you are asking for, not just for a short visit.

What do case officers look for in the funds evidence?

PAM3 directs officers to examine the applicant's personal bank statements and regular income, including pension income, when assessing whether the access-to-funds test is met. The assessment is about whether the money is genuinely available to the applicant and whether it is enough for the stay and the departure, rather than a single closing balance.

Do they only look at bank statements?

No. Bank statements are one input, and the official example specifies "itemised personal bank statements showing a 3-month period", which means the statements should show transactions over three months rather than one snapshot. Tax records and pension or other regular income streams are separate accepted examples, because they show where the money comes from and whether it will continue. An officer weighing a three-month statement alongside tax or pension records is looking for consistency between the balance and the declared income.

Why does the money have to cover leaving Australia?

The Home Affairs document list asks for "proof you have enough money for your stay and to leave Australia". This matters because the funds evidence is also used to support the genuine intention to stay temporarily: an applicant who can fund the return trip and still has ties and resources at home is easier to assess as a temporary entrant. If the evidence only covers living costs while in Australia but not the departure, the officer may treat the temporary-intention picture as incomplete.

How does regular income or a pension count?

PAM3 treats regular income, including pension, as relevant to the access-to-funds assessment. A pension or salary that arrives regularly can show ongoing capacity, but the officer still needs to see it in the records: a tax record or pension statement supports the claim that the income is real and continuing. A one-off transfer into an account, without any income record behind it, does not by itself show where the funds came from or that they will be available for the whole stay.

How does weak funds evidence turn into a refusal?

Insufficient funds is a mandatory criterion, not a discretionary box. If the officer is not satisfied that clause 870.222 is met, the application does not meet the criteria, and PAM3 lists insufficient funds among the common refusal grounds for this visa.

What happens if the documents are incomplete?

Home Affairs warns that incomplete applications might be delayed or refused if there is insufficient information to show the requirements are met. For funds specifically, PAM3 does not require the officer to invite more evidence before refusing; the officer may issue a further-information request under section 56, but the absence of a guaranteed request is what makes a thin bundle risky. If the documents submitted do not show access to enough money, the decision can be a refusal under the general power in section 65(1)(b) of the Migration Act, and the fee is not refunded.

Where does this sit among other refusal reasons?

In the PAM3 summary, insufficient funds (clause 870.222) appears as a standard refusal ground, alongside health insurance, genuine temporary intention, and the public interest criteria. It is a freestanding ground: even a genuine parent sponsor and adequate health insurance will not save an application where the officer is not satisfied about money. Conversely, because the funds evidence also feeds the genuine-intention assessment, weak finances can affect two parts of the decision at once.

Assume an applicant: what does a risky file look like?

Assume an applicant submits one bank statement with a large recent deposit, but no tax record, no pension statement, and no explanation of where the deposit came from, while asking for a stay measured in years. The officer can see a balance but cannot verify from the documents that the money is accessible for the whole period, or that it is the applicant's own or available to them. In that situation the natural next step is a request for more information, or, if the request is not satisfied, a refusal on the basis that the funds criterion is not met. This is a hypothetical used only to show how the rule works, not a description of any real case.

How should the funds evidence be put together?

The official examples point to three document types, and the way they are presented should let an officer follow the money without guessing.

What should the bank statements show?

Provide itemised personal bank statements covering a three-month period. "Itemised" means the transactions are visible, so the officer can see salary credits, pension payments, or other inflows, not just the balance. Statements in the applicant's own name match the PAM3 reference to the applicant's personal bank statements. If the applicant relies on access to funds rather than ownership, the bundle still has to make that access clear from the documents provided.

How far back should income records go?

The official example names tax records and pension or other regular income streams without setting a fixed look-back period for those items. The bank-statement example is the one with a stated period: three months. In practice, the income documents should cover a period long enough to show the income is regular, and they should line up with the period of stay proposed, up to the maximum five-year visa validity.

Should the evidence cover the whole stay?

Yes. Clause 870.222 ties the money to the expenses of the stay, and the visa can be granted for up to five years, with cumulative 870 time capped at ten years. The evidence does not have to be a single fixed deposit equal to every future expense, but it does have to show that the applicant has, or can access, enough to support themselves across the stay and to leave, using the accepted records.

Who can lawfully help with an 870 application?

Only some people can give immigration assistance on this visa. Under the Home Affairs official page, a person appointed to give immigration assistance must be a registered migration agent, a legal practitioner, or an exempt person. Anyone can be appointed to receive documents about the visa matter, but that is a narrower role than giving advice or help with the application. If you use a paid helper, check their status against the official categories, because the question of who is permitted to charge for this work is central to how the application is prepared.

Remember that this article is general information only and does not constitute personalised professional advice; your own circumstances should be measured against the latest official publication or the opinion of a qualified professional, and only a registered migration agent, legal practitioner, or exempt person can lawfully provide immigration assistance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need to show a fixed amount of money for the 870 visa?

The official criteria do not publish a dollar figure for the Subclass 870 visa. The requirement is that you have, or have access to, enough money to support yourself in Australia and to leave, and the Department's examples of proof are itemised three-month bank statements, tax records, and pension or regular income.

What bank statements do case officers want?

The Home Affairs document list asks for itemised personal bank statements showing a three-month period. PAM3 also says officers examine the applicant's personal bank statements, so the statements should be transaction-level and in the applicant's own name rather than a single balance certificate.

Can pension or tax records replace bank statements?

They are separate accepted examples, not a replacement. The official list includes tax records and pension or other regular income streams alongside bank statements, and PAM3 treats regular income including pension as part of the access-to-funds assessment, so a complete bundle usually uses more than one type.

Will the officer ask for more documents if my funds evidence is thin?

They may, but it is not guaranteed for funds. PAM3 notes that officers can issue a section 56 natural justice letter, yet does not require them to do so before refusing for insufficient funds; Home Affairs also says incomplete applications can be refused when there is not enough information.

Can insufficient funds alone cause a refusal?

Yes. Clause 870.222, which covers the expenses of the stay, is a mandatory criterion, and the Department's document list separately asks for proof of money for the stay and to leave Australia; if the officer is not satisfied about the applicant's access to enough money, the visa must be refused even if sponsorship and health insurance are in order.

Does the funds evidence affect the genuine temporary intention test?

It can. The same document list asks for proof of money for the stay and to leave Australia as part of showing a genuine intention to stay temporarily, so weak funds evidence can leave both the money criterion and the temporary-intention picture unresolved.

References

Australian Department of Home Affairs — Sponsored Parent (Temporary) visa (Subclass 870) official page

Federal Register of Legislation — Migration Regulations 1994 (Subclass 870) and PAM3 summary