Missed births, empty rooms: these are the lives torn apart by the migration crackdown

As Noman Shahid stood inside Bowman Hall raising his right hand and swearing his oath of allegiance to Australia, he wondered about what was missing instead of thinking about how far he has come.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

or signup to continue reading

It was meant to be the proudest day of his life, the culmination of six years of hard work and building a future far from where he grew up. But as the applause echoed throughout the hall, the data operator looked at the empty seat meant for his wife.

The Department of Home Affairs had refused her visitor visa despite public assurance from the portfolio's minister that partners awaiting visas would be allowed to visit Australia regularly. Her application was rejected on the grounds she posed an "overstay risk".

From left: John and Dado on their wedding day with Jamie and James alongside Norman and his wife Musarat. Pictures supplied

She remained in limbo, thousands of kilometres away in Pakistan while he took the citizenship pledge.

"I was standing there calling this country my home, officially becoming an Australian citizen," Mr Shahid said.

"And I did not have a single person to share it with. It leaves you asking a terrible question: Am I less Australian than someone whose partner happened to be onshore?"

Mr Shahid's experience is not isolated, it is typical of the human fallout occurring as a consequence of a policy shift inside Australia's immigration system.

The policy shift

In late July 2026, the federal government introduced Ministerial Direction 117. Overnight and without a transition period, the directive pushed thousands of offshore partner visa applicants, spouses of Australian citizens and permanent residents, to the very back of the processing queue.

The change came as the Home Affairs department hiked up the partner visa application fee by 25 per cent to $11,710 while shedding hundreds of staff through voluntary redundancy rounds, nearly 500 of which came from immigration programs.

The result was a brutal paradox where families paid record-high fees for a system stripped of staff.

A Home Affairs spokesperson said the redundancy program was necessary to bring staffing levels in line with the available budget amid a period of low employee attrition.

The government was reprioritising work to allocate resources to its highest priorities and manage migration levels.

"The government is prioritising onshore migrants and their families to reduce waiting times for migrants already in Australia seeking permanent residency," the spokesperson said.

While Ministerial Direction 117 allowed applications to be prioritised for compassionate and compelling circumstances, the threshold for priority consideration remained high compared to what most applicants faced.

However, for more than 22,000 Australian families with spouses waiting overseas, those reprioritisation measures left them trapped in administrative limbo.

Ticking clocks and empty rooms

For many families, the delay did not just eat up time but stole irreplaceable life milestones.

In Sydney, Dr Alina Jacob was preparing to give birth to her first child on November 1. Both she and her husband were doctors, preparing for their Australian medical licensing exams. When she first became pregnant, she returned home to Australia to be with her family.

Her husband applied for a tourist visa to be present for the birth of their baby. Despite Dr Jacob's state, proof of medical background, and ample funds, Home Affairs rejected his visa application.

"I don't know how my husband can be with us for the birth of our first child," Dr Jacob said. "If we pay the same as onshore partner visa applicants, we shouldn't be pushed back in the queue."

In Canberra, information technology (IT) professional Chami was experiencing a different kind of ticking clock.

He married his wife, Nishi, but had to fly back to Australia after running out of leave from work. Nishi was refused a visitor visa.

"We both turned 39 this year," Chami said. "This wait is seriously threatening our chances of having children naturally as Nishi approaches 40. Behind every pending application is a life placed on hold."

For Dado, a 33-year-old mother, the separation from her husband has defined her children's entire lives. She went through a high-risk pregnancy alone and raised her twin boys, Jamie and James, for nearly three years without her husband John. He was refused a visitor visa three times.

Dado, her husband John, and twin sons Jamie and James. Pictures supplied

"My twin boys run up to men they don't know at shopping centers, calling 'Daddy, Daddy,'" Dado said. "It has now been 32 months since I last saw my husband. I miss him terribly, and I just want my family together."

Robo-refusal 

The system's severity was further compounded by what applicants described as an increasingly automated adjudication process.

Because clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations required visitor visa applicants to prove they genuinely intended on a temporary stay, having an Australian partner or a pending partner visa, was commonly used as evidence that the applicant would overstay.

Julian*, an Australian working internationally, experienced this catch-22 firsthand when his partner, Maria*, applied for a visitor visa so they could visit Julian's 87-year-old father and nearly 80-year-old mother in Australia.

Despite providing mountains of proof, including property deeds in her home country, an active business contract, approved European residency visas, and booked return flights out of Australia, her application was rejected.

When they re-applied with even more evidentiary proof, the second refusal arrived at 4am, featuring exact, verbatim text from the first rejection email.

"I don't believe an actual human looked at either application," Julian said. "Why would she overstay a tourist visa when I don't even live in Australia? My parents were denied the chance to meet her, and I had to leave Australia prematurely just to reunite with her overseas."

A system under reckoning

The growing outrage sparked political friction. In 2020, current Assistant Minister Julian Hill, then an opposition MP, said in Parliament that immigration delays were "not a shortage of resources" because families were paying thousands in fees.

Today, with fees at nearly $12,000, the department routinely cited limited resourcing as the reason for high-demand delays.

The community group 309 Sponsors United, representing more than 1300 affected families, took their fight to Parliament. House e-petition EN10588, which demanded the Minister for Home Affairs amend Direction 117 and restore equal priority for offshore families, gathered 23,827 signatures.

For Noman Shahid, as he looked at his new citizenship certificate, the political debates offered little comfort.

"We were honest people who wanted to follow the right path," Noman said.

"We paid our fees, we did everything legally, and we were kept apart. All we asked for was a fair, timely, and compassionate process that let us build our lives together."