Natural Justice and Section 57 Letters
Your right to respond before a refusal

Where the Department has verified a document with the issuing authority and received a response that the document does not appear genuine or cannot be verified. DVR results are a common and serious form of adverse information.

Where information in the current application differs from information in a previous application, visa grant, or departmental record — for example, a different date of birth, different marital status, or inconsistent employment history.

Where information obtained from government databases (tax records, social security, Medicare, court records) conflicts with claims made in the application — for example, claiming to reside in a relationship when records show otherwise.

Where a third party has provided information to the Department alleging something adverse about the applicant — for example, that a relationship is not genuine, or that the applicant has worked without authorisation.

Where ASIO or another government agency has assessed the applicant as a risk to Australian national security or interests. These matters are complex and require specialist advice.

Where the applicant's answers at a departmental interview are inconsistent with each other or with the documents on file. Interview records may be relied upon as adverse information in the refusal.

The timeframe for responding to a section 57 natural justice letter is set by the Migration Regulations 1994. The prescribed period is typically 28 days from the date the letter is taken to have been received. The letter may also specify a different period where a regulation provides for a longer or shorter timeframe.

The letter will typically itemise each piece of adverse information. Each item must be addressed in your response — failing to address an item can be taken as acceptance of it or inability to explain it. Do not respond generally without tying your response to each specific allegation or concern.

A bare assertion that adverse information is incorrect is rarely sufficient. Support every claim with documentary evidence — original documents, certified copies, records from government or authoritative sources, photographs, receipts, correspondence. Where original documents are in question, seek alternative evidence that proves the underlying fact.

For factual matters that cannot be proven by documents alone — for example, the circumstances under which a document was obtained — a statutory declaration from the applicant, sponsor, or a witness with direct knowledge can carry weight. A statutory declaration is a legal document and must be truthful.

For technical matters — such as whether a document could be authenticated by expert forensic analysis — an expert report from a suitably qualified person may assist. For relationship visa cases, a relationship counsellor or expert on cultural practices may provide useful context.

If the adverse information relates to something that is in fact true — for example, that a document is not genuine or that a claim was inaccurate — do not attempt to maintain the false position. Persisting with a false claim after a section 57 notice is strong evidence of deliberate misrepresentation and is likely to result in a PIC 4020 finding and a 10-year exclusion. Seek advice on the implications of correcting the record.

If the letter refers to a document the Department believes is not genuine, to information that appears to have been deliberately false, or to identity concerns — it is likely signalling a potential PIC 4020 finding. A PIC 4020 finding can result in refusal and a 10-year exclusion period for the applicant (and can affect associated applicants). This is the highest-risk category of section 57 letter.

If the applicant already holds a visa and the letter relates to a visa condition breach or a change in circumstances affecting the visa grant, the section 57 process may be part of a cancellation process. The notice will typically be issued under a different provision (section 119 for on-shore cancellations) but the obligation to respond is similar.

For partner and prospective marriage visas, a section 57 letter relating to a tip-off or inconsistent information about the relationship typically signals that the decision-maker is not satisfied the relationship is genuine. The response must focus on the specific concern raised — not simply general evidence of the relationship.

A section 57 letter relating to health information, a criminal record, or a security assessment signals that the Department is considering whether a PIC relating to health, character, or security is satisfied. Each of these areas has specific procedural requirements and may require specialist advice beyond standard migration.

Most of the time available for a section 57 response should be spent gathering evidence and preparing the written submission — not deciding whether to seek advice. By the time the response must be lodged, there is no time to rebuild. Contact a registered migration agent immediately on receipt of the letter.

A registered migration agent can read the section 57 letter and identify what finding the Department is moving toward — PIC 4020, character, relationship genuineness — and calibrate the response accordingly. The response strategy for a DVR letter is different from a tip-off letter.

A registered migration agent can advise specifically on what categories of evidence are likely to be persuasive for the type of adverse information in question — and what gaps in the evidence file need to be filled before the deadline.

A registered migration agent can prepare the strongest possible response on the available facts and evidence. But no agent can guarantee that the Department will be satisfied or that the application will succeed. If you are refused, the agent can advise on ART review rights and timeframes.