Why Subclass 445 applications are refused in 2026 and how agents can respond

Most Subclass 445 (Dependent Child) refusals come down to four things that must all be true at once: the child is a dependent child of a parent who still holds a qualifying temporary visa, the sponsorship was approved and is still in force, every person covered by the application meets the public interest criteria, and the application itself was validly made. Fail any one of them and the decision-maker has no discretion to grant. That structure comes from the Migration Regulations 1994 — clauses 445.211, 445.221 to 445.224 and the linked Schedule 2 criteria — read together with the Department of Home Affairs' official Dependent Child visa (Subclass 445) page as at the July 2026 official page, which sets out how the paper application must be lodged and what a decision notice contains.

Everything below is general information about how the criteria work, not advice on any particular case; the criteria interact in ways that depend on facts specific to each family, so a practitioner assessment against the current legislation and the Department's published guidance is what settles an individual matter.

What does the refusal letter actually have to tell you?

Under the Department's official page, a decision is given in writing and the child may be inside or outside Australia when it is made. If the visa is refused, the notice states why it was refused and whether there is a right to a review of the decision. The page also states plainly that the application charge is not refunded if the application is refused.

Those three sentences determine the whole remediation strategy. The stated reason tells you which clause you failed; the review statement tells you whether merits review is available for that reason; and the absence of a refund means a fresh application is rarely cost-free. Note also that review rights attach to the decision as made — where the ground is one that falls outside the reviewable grounds set by the Migration Act 1958 and the regulations, no amount of argument about fairness changes that, though the underlying defect may well be fixable in a new application.

Does the child still count as a dependent child?

This is grounds one and two of ten, and they are separate tests.

At the time of application, clause 445.211(a) requires the applicant to be a dependent child of a visa-holding parent. "Dependent child" takes its meaning from regulation 1.03: the child must be the parent's child or step-child, not married or in a de facto relationship, and either under 18, or 18 or over and dependent on the parent, or unable to work through loss of bodily or mental function. The Department's document guidance mirrors this: for applicants over 18 it asks for evidence of dependency on the parent holding the temporary Partner or Dependent Child visa for basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing, and for how long that support has been provided — bank statements, money transfers and rent receipts are given as examples — and for applicants over 18 claiming disability it asks for evidence from a qualified medical practitioner of a total or partial loss of mental or bodily function that stops them working.

At the time of decision, clause 445.222 requires the applicant to continue to be a dependent child of that parent. Dependency is not frozen at lodgement. PAM3 guidance notes the practical working rule: where dependency was assessed within the six months before application, continuing dependency may be assumed, but beyond six months the officer is expected to take reasonable steps to confirm there has been no material change. In practice this is where older applicants lose — the evidence is real but stale, and nobody refreshed it during processing. Assume a hypothetical applicant who turned 18 nine months before lodgement and whose only dependency evidence is a single parental support letter from two years earlier: the factual position may be unchanged, but the file does not demonstrate it.

Is the parent still holding a qualifying temporary visa?

Clause 445.221 requires that the applicant's parent continues to be a visa-holding parent at the time of decision. Regulation 445.111 limits that concept to holders of Subclass 309, 310, 445, 820 or 826 visas.

The most common way this fails is success elsewhere: once the parent's permanent partner visa (Subclass 100 or 801) is granted, the parent is no longer the holder of the provisional visa, and clause 445.221 can no longer be met. The 445 is an event-linked temporary visa whose validity is tied to the parent's temporary visa; PAM3 describes the visa as ceasing when a parent's permanent visa is granted or otherwise ceases. It also fails in the harder cases — the parent's temporary visa cancelled, or expired, during processing.

This produces the timing advice that matters most in practice: a 445 is a bridge into the parent's permanent partner application, not a resting place. The child must be added to that permanent application before it is decided, otherwise the bridge collapses at the moment the parent's permanent grant is made.

Who may sponsor, and is that sponsorship still alive?

Grounds four, five and six are sponsorship grounds, and they are frequently merged in case notes when they are three distinct failures.

Clause 445.211(b) requires that the applicant is sponsored by the nominator or sponsor of the visa-holding parent. The default rule is identity of sponsor: the same person who sponsored the parent's provisional partner visa sponsors the child. Agents sometimes see Form 918 signed by a relative or a friend, for which the regulations provide no basis; the visa-holding parent personally may sponsor only in the narrow cl. 445.223(3) case where the nominator or sponsor has died or the relationship has ceased and the parent has requested consideration under the family violence or parental arrangements provisions.

Clause 445.224 requires that the sponsorship has been approved by the Minister and is still in force at decision. An approved-but-withdrawn sponsorship, or one that lapses during processing, does not satisfy it. Newable sponsorships exist, but only on the narrow paths in clause 445.223: where the nominator or sponsor has died, or the relationship has ceased, and the visa-holding parent has requested consideration under the family violence or parental arrangements provisions, the parent may sponsor; and in the further case where the applicant is the dependent child of another Subclass 445 holder and the circumstances in clause 445.223(3)(a) apply (the nominator or sponsor has died, or the relationship has ceased, and the visa-holding parent has requested consideration under the family violence or parental arrangements provisions), the sponsor of the person seeking Subclass 100 or 801 may sponsor. PAM3 indicates that a new sponsorship is made on Form 40CH and has to meet the financial requirement in regulation 1.20 — PAM3 records that the sponsor must be able to provide financial support for at least two years — so "switch sponsors" is rarely a same-week fix.

Separately, regulation 1.20KB operates as a hard bar: PAM3 records that a sponsorship must be refused where the sponsor has an unresolved or convicted registrable offence. This is not curable by better paperwork within the same application. It changes the analysis from "fix the file" to "different sponsor or different pathway", and where registrable-offence history exists it should be checked before a word of the application is drafted rather than after refusal.

Can everyone covered by the application meet the public interest criteria?

The remaining grounds sit in clauses 445.225 to 445.228, and most refusals here are health, character or honesty failures.

The criteria are cumulative. Depending on age and composition: PIC 4001 (character), 4002 (security), 4003 (sanctions and weapons of mass destruction), 4004 (Commonwealth debts), 4007 (health), 4009, 4020 (integrity — bogus documents and false or misleading information) and 4021 (passport) apply generally; PIC 4019 applies where the applicant was 18 or over at time of application; PIC 4017 (custody and parental responsibility) and PIC 4018 (best interests of the child) apply where the applicant was under 18; and PIC 4015 and 4016 apply to additional applicants under 18 in a combined application.

Two features make this a trap. First, the standard: PAM3 records that health is assessed against the permanent visa standard, so the health assessment type is "permanent" rather than temporary. Second, the "one fails, all fail" rule in clauses 445.227 and 445.228 — family members must meet the applicable criteria whether or not they are included in the application, and the failure of a non-applying family member defeats the whole application. Because Form 918 covers the applicant and any dependent children of the child who apply together, those included children can bring the file down even where the principal child is straightforward.

Honesty failures deserve separate mention because they carry consequences beyond this visa. PIC 4020 covers bogus documents and false or misleading information, and the consequences of a finding are not confined to the refused application.

What do these ten grounds look like side by side?

#	Refusal ground	Clause or rule	What usually fixes it
1	Not a dependent child at application	cl. 445.211(a), reg 1.03	Relationship, age and dependency or disability evidence
2	Dependency not maintained to decision	cl. 445.222	Refreshed dependency evidence during processing
3	Parent no longer holds 309/310/445/820/826	cl. 445.221	Different visa pathway; cannot be cured inside 445
4	Wrong sponsor — not the parent's nominator	cl. 445.211(b)	Sponsorship by the correct person
5	Sponsorship not approved or lapsed	cl. 445.224	Fresh, approved sponsorship in force at decision
6	Registrable-offence bar on the sponsor	reg 1.20KB	Alternative lawful sponsor, if one exists
7	Health at the permanent standard fails	PIC 4007	Specialist management of the health question
8	Character or values failures	PIC 4001, 4019; police certificates	Certificates, Form 80 where over 16
9	Family member fails — one fails, all fail	cl. 445.227, 445.228	Identify every covered person before lodgement
10	Application invalid	Schedule 1 item 1211; Form 918; correct postage and fee	Relodge correctly — no discretion to waive

What makes an application invalid rather than merely weak?

An invalid application is never assessed on the merits. The Department's official page sets the validity conditions for this visa: it must be applied for on paper using Form 918, sent by post or courier to the Child and Other Family Processing Centre in Perth with correct prepaid postage, and the application charge must be paid before posting, with proof of payment included. Forms must be completed in English, original documents should not be sent, and the application cannot be lodged in person or at any other office. The Department states it will not consider invalid applications further and will notify the applicant if that happens. The regulations add the clearance bar — the applicant must not be in immigration clearance.

Practically, invalidity is the cheapest refusal to prevent and the most expensive to explain. The recurring failure is procedural rather than substantive: no payment evidence, wrong delivery address, or the form used for a different family visa.

After a refusal, is the remedy review or a new application?

That turns entirely on which ground was failed, and the two paths are not interchangeable.

Where the ground was a sponsorship defect — no approval, lapsed sponsorship, wrong nominator — clause 445.224 requires approval in force at the time of decision, and there is no way to satisfy a time-of-decision criterion retrospectively. The remedy is a new application with a valid, approved sponsorship. The same reasoning applies to clause 445.221 once a parent's permanent partner visa has been granted: re-applying on identical facts reproduces the identical refusal.

Where the ground was a public interest criterion, the analysis differs, because some PIC findings turn on evidence that can be updated and some do not. A health failure assessed against the permanent standard requires engagement with the health requirement itself, and the applicable review pathway depends on the criterion and the decision record. Where the notice states there is a right to review, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is the usual merits review forum; the Minister's personal powers exist separately and are not a general appeal route. Because review jurisdiction is defined by statute and the decision record rather than by how unfair the outcome feels, read the review paragraph in the decision notice first and build everything else after it.

Grounds three and ten sit outside both remedies in a practical sense: the correct response is a different visa, not a challenge to this one. Dependent-child pathways outside the provisional-partner chain — including the child visa categories for applicants outside and inside Australia — carry their own age, dependency and study or incapacity tests for applicants over 18, so the planning conversation should start from the child's current circumstances, not from the refused 445.

What should be verified before Form 918 goes in the post?

The verification order below follows the order the criteria break.

The parent's visa grant letter showing a current Subclass 309, 310, 445, 820 or 826 visa, plus confirmation that no permanent partner application is close to decision.
The identity of the parent's nominator or sponsor, and whether that person is willing and able to sponsor the child.
Any registrable-offence history for the sponsor, resolved well before lodgement.
For every person who will be covered, including non-applying family members: character and health position, with health understood as assessed to the permanent standard.
For children over 16: police certificates from each country where 12 months or more was spent in the last 10 years since turning 16, issued under AFP Code 33 – Immigration/Citizenship, valid for 12 months from issue, plus Form 80.
Four recent passport-size photographs (45 mm x 35 mm), less than six months old, of the applicant and of each included dependent child.
A plan to add the child to the parent's permanent partner application before it is decided.
Procedural validity: correct form, English completion, payment evidence, correct Perth address, no originals.

Two obligations sit alongside this list throughout processing. Section 104 requires written notice of changes in circumstances — the Department's official page lists changes of contact details, passport and relationship status, and the birth of a child. Form 1023 is the prescribed route for correcting incorrect answers already given. A file that was correct in July and wrong in December is a refused file either way.

Who may lawfully give immigration assistance on this visa?

Only restricted categories of people may give immigration assistance for a fee or reward: the Department's official page states they must be a registered migration agent, a legal practitioner, or an exempt person. Anyone may be appointed to receive documents on the applicant's behalf — that is a significantly narrower role than giving assistance. Appointments are made on Form 956 for assistance, and Form 956A for an authorised recipient, either sent with the paper application or notified in writing.

For a refusal response this distinction is not academic. Whether the decorator of the file was lawfully entitled to act goes to the applicant's protections and remedies, and a consumer who paid for assistance from someone outside those categories has a complaint avenue entirely separate from the visa decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will the application fee be refunded if a Subclass 445 is refused?

No. The Department's official page states the application charge is not refunded if the application is refused.

Can the child stay in Australia while a refused decision is being reviewed?

That depends on the bridging visa position and the review decision, not on the refusal itself. The official page states a child who applies in Australia is granted a bridging visa, which starts if their current visa expires before decision and lets them stay lawfully while processing continues. Check the specific bridging visa conditions and their review-related operation on the current official page.

Does the child need their own separate sponsorship approval?

Yes, in substance. Clause 445.224 requires the sponsorship to have been approved by the Minister and to be in force at decision, and PAM3 records that a new sponsorship is made on Form 40CH and must meet the financial requirement in regulation 1.20. Being named on the parent's partner application does not by itself satisfy clause 445.224.

What happens if the parent's permanent partner visa is granted while a 445 is pending?

Clause 445.221 can no longer be met, because the parent has stopped being the holder of the qualifying provisional visa. The practical mitigation is lodgement and coordination with the parent's permanent application well before it is decided, since the 445's validity is tied to the temporary visa rather than existing independently.

Are police certificates required for dependent children?

Yes from age 16. The official page requires children over 16 to provide a police certificate from every country where they spent 12 months or more in the last 10 years since turning 16, issued by the Australian Federal Police under Code 33 – Immigration/Citizenship, valid for 12 months from issue, together with Form 80. Standard disclosure certificates and state or territory police certificates are not accepted.

Can another family member's health problem sink this application?

Yes. Clauses 445.227 and 445.228 extend specified public interest criteria to family members whether or not they are included in the application, with additional criteria for more applicants under 18 in a combined application. Identify every covered person at the planning stage rather than after the request arrives.

Does a prepared application ever avoid the review question?

Yes, and it is worth treating as the primary goal. Most grounds in the table above turn on evidence assembled before lodgement — particularly continuation of dependency to the decision date, identity and eligibility of the sponsor, and family members' health and character. Review rights, where they exist at all, are a remedy for a decision already made.