1421176 (Migration)

[2015] AATA 3632

1421176 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3632 (16 November 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Peter Ludwig Schuh

VISA APPLICANT:  Ms Sabine Sauerzapf

CASE NUMBER:  1421176

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2013/2144502 OSF2013/2144502

MEMBER:Susan Trotter

DATE:16 November 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

·cl.309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·r.2.03A of the Regulations

·

Statement made on 16 November 2015 at 11:03am

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. The visa applicant, Ms Sabine Sauerzapf, is a citizen of Austria and is currently 36 years of age. Ms Sauerzapf met the review applicant, Mr Peter Schuh, in Vienna in 2010 when Mr Schuh attended an intensive German course, of which Ms Sauerzapf was one of the teachers. They kept in contact following 2010 and subsequently formed a relationship in April 2012. On 19 December 2013, Ms Sauerzapf applied for a Partner (Provisional) Class UF visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) on the basis of her relationship with Mr Schuh.

2. On 17 October 2014, a Department delegate of the Minister for Immigration refused to grant the visa to Ms Sauerzapf on the basis that they were not satisfied that the parties’ relationship had reached the level of committed de facto relationship as required by the legislation.

3. Mr Schuh lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal on 24 December 2014.

4. The hearing took place on 4 November 2015. Mr Schuh appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also heard evidence from Ms Sauerzapf by telephone from Vienna. The Tribunal notes that Mr Schuh had also arranged for the Tribunal to take evidence from one of his sisters, one of his friends and his accountant, however the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to take evidence from any further witnesses.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   ISSUES

6. Partner visas involve a two stage process. The visa applicant must hold a provisional visa in order to be granted a permanent visa. The grant of the provisional visa enables the visa applicant to travel to and remain in Australia on a temporary basis. The grant of a permanent visa may subsequently be considered, and generally depends on whether the relationship has continued for a period of at least two years.

7. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class UF contained only one subclass: Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Relevantly to this matter the primary criteria include cl.309.211 and cl.309.221.

8. Clause 309.211(2) requires that at the time the visa application was made the visa applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. In the present case Ms Sauerzapf claims to be have been the de facto partner of Mr Schuh, an Australian citizen by birth, since 26 April 2012.

9. Clause 309.221 requires that the visa applicant continue to satisfy the cl.309.211 criteria at the time of decision.

10. ‘De facto partner’ is defined in s.5CB of the Act and provides that a person is in a de facto relationship with another person to whom they are not married if they have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, the relationship is genuine and continuing, the couple live together, or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis, and the couple are not related by family: s.5CB(2).

11. In forming an opinion as to these matters required in s.5CB(2), regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects of the relationship and the nature of the visa applicant’s and review applicant’s household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.09A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision.

12. Persons claiming to be in a de facto relationship for a partner visa must also meet the additional criteria in r.2.03A. These are: that the couple are both at least 18 years of age: r.2.03A(2); and with limited exceptions, that the visa applicant has been in the de facto relationship for at least the period of 12 months ending immediately before the date of the application, unless he or she can establish compelling and compassionate circumstances for the grant of the visa: r.2.03A(3). The requirement that the relationship existed for 12 months prior to the application does not apply in certain circumstances where the sponsor is or was a humanitarian visa holder, or for applications made on or after 9 November 2009, where the de facto relationship has been registered under a relevant State or Territory law: r.2.03(4), (5).

13. It follows that the issues to be determined by the Tribunal are:

    (a)  Were the cl.309.211 de facto relationship criteria met at the time of the visa application?; that is:

    (i)were the requirements for a de facto relationship met[1]

    (ii)were each of the parties at least 18 years of age?; and

    (iii)had the parties been in a de facto relationship for at least 12 months prior to the date of the visa application?; and, if not

    (iv)can the visa applicant establish compelling and compassionate circumstances for the grant of the visa or were there other circumstances existing such that the requirement to have been in a de facto relationship for at least 12 months prior to the date of the visa application does not apply?;

    and

    (b)  Did the cl.309.211 de facto relationship criteria continue to be met at the time of decision?

    [1] S.5CB(2) of the Act

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

14. Mr Schuh provided documentation to Tribunal in relation to the parties’ relationship, including statutory declarations and statements from the parties, family and friends, travel documents including hotel receipts, letters from his accountant in relation to taxation advice given to Mr Schuh and photographs.

15. The Tribunal first heard from Mr Schuh in person, in the absence of Ms Sauerzapf, then heard from Ms Sauerzapf by telephone from Austria. The Tribunal found both parties to be truthful in their evidence. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of both parties in full. The parties were forthright and consistent with their evidence, which the Tribunal is satisfied was not rehearsed. Of note, there were no inconsistencies in the parties’ evidence, including in relation to questions that had not previously been posed to the parties. The Tribunal was satisfied that the parties showed a genuine connection between them.

16. The Tribunal accepts the evidence before it as summarised where relevant in these Reasons.

    Background

17. Mr Schuh is 49 years of age and currently resides between his home in Childers and Austria, where he spends a significant part of each year residing with Ms Sauerzapf. Ms Sauerzapf is 36 years of age and lives in an apartment in Vienna.

    Formation and development of the relationship

18. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of both parties that they first met when Mr Schuh undertook an intensive German language course for three to four weeks in Vienna in December 2010, as part of a lengthy trip around the world he was undertaking at the time. The course was taught, one on one, by three teachers and Ms Sauerzapf was his main teacher. Throughout the course, Mr Schuh and Ms Sauerzapf socialised as part of the course, including sharing numerous meal outings together, and also socialised outside of the course on a few occasions, including attendance at Christmas markets with another teacher and students. Mr Schuh left Vienna before Christmas 2010 but returned to Vienna in January 2011 (when he met Ms Sauerzapf for coffee) and then again in March 2011 for a further week of German language lessons, again taught by Ms Sauerzapf. Mr Schuh again visited Vienna in November 2011 en route to a family wedding in the United Kingdom, at which time he and Ms Sauerzapf met for lunch on one occasion. The next occasion upon which the parties saw each other in person was in April 2012 when Ms Sauerzapf visited Australia. From December 2010 until February 2012 they stayed in contact via email and text messages. Throughout this period their relationship was one of friends only, given that Ms Sauerzapf was in a long-standing relationship at the time. Following the end of that relationship in February 2012, Ms Sauerzapf made travel plans to Australia to visit Mr Schuh and another friend in Adelaide. The parties travelled and stayed together for most of April 2012 and committed to an exclusive relationship together on 26 April 2012. Ms Sauerzapf departed Australia on 30 April 2012 and since that time the parties have travelled together extensively and visited each other in Austria and Australia respectively for significant periods of time.

19. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of both parties as to their meeting and the early formation of their relationship.

    Issue 1 - Were the cl.309.211 de facto relationship criteria met at the time of the visa application?

    Were the requirements for a de facto relationship met?

20. The Tribunal considered the matters to which it is required to have regard, pursuant to r.1.09A(3), in considering whether the requirements for a de facto relationship were met.

    Financial aspects of the relationship

21. The evidence of the parties is that they had no joint assets or liabilities at the time of the visa application.

22. The Tribunal notes that a copy of Mr Schuh’s Austrian mobile telephone contract, commenced in Ms Sauerzapf’s name, and copies of accounts between December 2012 and December 2013, were provided with the visa application.

23. Both parties gave consistent evidence that since April 2012 they have maintained independent finances although have shared some expenses when together. Mr Schuh pays for usual household expenses and the daily costs of living when they are together in Australia and Ms Sauerzapf does likewise when they are together in Austria.

24. Both parties also gave consistent evidence that it had never been their practice, or the practice of the other party, to intermingle finances with their respective previous partners. Mr Schuh told the Tribunal that whilst in a previous same sex de facto relationship for five and a half between 2001 and 2006, he and his partner maintained separate finances but shared living and other expenses in a manner similar to the manner in which he and Ms Sauerzapf have done since April 2012. Ms Sauerzapf also told the Tribunal that she and her previous de facto partner of over 12 years also maintained separate finances and shared expenses in a manner similar to the manner in which she and Mr Schuh have since April 2012. Ms Sauerzapf submitted that it is not at all unusual for couples in Austria to maintain separate finances and to not even have joint bank accounts.

25. Whilst the parties did not share joint assets or liabilities at the time of the visa application, the Tribunal had regard to the statutory declaration provided by Mr Schuh’s accountant stating that he met with both parties together in November 2012 and May 2013 to discuss financial and accounting affairs. The Tribunal considers this consistent with the type of financially related decision making that might be expected in a long-term and committed relationship.

26. Given the parties’ circumstances, the Tribunal does not place significant, if any, weight, on the fact that the parties have not pooled their finances or made any major acquisitions together. The Tribunal accepts that it has not been the practice of either party in previous long-standing relationships to intermingle their finances with their partner. The Tribunal accepts that during the time the parties have spent together up until the date of the visa application, the expenses of daily living and the like for both had largely been covered by the party in whose home country they were residing at any particular time. Further, as early as November 2012 they were seeking joint advice as to finances. The Tribunal is satisfied that this is not inconsistent with their claimed relationship.

    Nature of the household

27. The travel and other documents provided to the Department and the Tribunal show that in the twelve months prior to the time of the visa application, the parties had spent approximately eight months either residing together, in either Austria or Australia, in each other’s respective homes or travelling together,r including in Hungary, Japan and Iceland. Further, the Tribunal notes that in the period April to December 2012, the parties spent approximately 200 days together in Australia and Austria and in travels together, including to New York, Las Vegas and Fiji.

28. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the parties that during their periods of residing together up until the time of the visa application, they shared domestic duties, with Mr Schuh doing most cooking and kitchen duties and Ms Sauerzapf doing most washing and other cleaning duties.

29. The delegate expressed a concern that the parties did not spend more time together and did not place any weight on Mr Schuh’s evidence that, upon advice, for taxation purposes, he is limited to spending less than 182 days per year outside Australia. Further, the delegate raised that Ms Sauerzapf could visit Mr Schuh in Australia for periods longer than three months by seeking a longer stay visitor visa of six to twelve months.

30. Mr Schuh provided copies of three different advices from his accountants, Grant Thornton, in relation to taxation implications depending upon his residency status between Australia and Austria. The Tribunal accepts that at the time of the visa application, Mr Schuh had been acting upon this advice to spend no more than 182 days outside Australia, and also had business commitments requiring him to limit his absence from Australia. Further, the Tribunal accepts that at the time of the visa application, Ms Sauerzapf had visited Mr Schuh in Australia on three month visitor visas rather than on longer period visitor visas, balanced against her need to also continue with her employment in Austria.

31. The Tribunal is of the view that eight of twelve months spent together, in either Austria or Australian, in circumstances where the parties were also balancing employment, business and taxation issues is a significant period of time and entirely consistent with the parties’ claimed relationship. The Tribunal places significant weight on this period of time spent together in those circumstances.

32. Having taken all of these matters into account, the Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence as to the nature of the parties’ households in Austria and Australia, and the not insignificant amounts of time spent together by the parties in the preceding twelve months and earlier, was consistent with a de facto relationship at the time of the visa application.

    Social aspects of the relationship

33. The evidence before the Tribunal included numerous statutory declarations and emails from family, friends and work colleagues of the parties, referring to their knowledge of the parties’ relationship, social outings and holidays with the parties and observations of the parties. Numerous photographs of social activities and meetings with family, friends and colleagues were also provided leading up to the time of the visa application. In addition to the evidence of the parties as to their very extensive socialising together and with family and friends, some examples of those statutory declarations are as follows:

Declarant’s relationship with parties

Extract from Statutory Declaration

Female colleague and employee of Mr Schuh for over 25 years, resident of Childers

“I first met Sabine in April 2012 and again in September of that same year … If anyone was more sceptical of this relationship it was me. I had seen Peter in relationships over the years and I had seen him hurt. I thought to myself what would a beautiful young Austrian girl be looking for in Peter and that he was bound to be hurt again. So the protector in me, made it my business to check this girl out. Well I couldn’t have been more wrong!...they already sound like an old married couple.”

One of Mr Schuh’s sisters

“I have physically met with Sabine for 3 days in September 2012, 1 day in November 2012, several days in December 2012, approximately a week in Japan in October 2013, several days in Melbourne and Brisbane in December 2013…

I first met Sabine in September 2012 when Peter brought her down to Launceston to stay with me…He was very keen to introduce her to our family as his new partner.”

Female friend of Ms Sauerzapf since 1982

“Sabine went on a trip to Australia to visit some friends among them was Pete, whom she fell in love with while spending time with him. I finally met Pete when he was visiting Sabine in May 2012. They were also both at my wedding in August 2013…”

Female friend of Ms Sauerzapf since 2000

“Sabine first mentioned Pete to me before she went on a trip to Australia in April 2012. When she got back from the trip in May 2012 she seemed really happy. She then told me that she had fallen in love with Pete and that she was intending to have a serious and generous (sic) relationship with him despite the geographical distance”

34.      Female friend of Ms Sauerzapf since 2005

“Sabine .. went on a trip to Japan, Australia and New Zealand at the end of March 2012. When she came back at the beginning of May, she told us that she had visited a friend in Australia called Peter Schuh and that they had spent a lot of time together and started a relationship. A few weeks later this Peter Schuh came to visit Sabine in Vienna…and he was introduced to me … in June 2012. They went to New York for Sabine’s birthday in July 2012 and later on we had a few days together … in the Austrian mountains…Peter and Sabine had developed a very stable, appreciative and close relationship and we (are) all very happy for them. From their attitude towards their relationship and their future I was able … to tell that they are in love and want to spend their future together.”

35.      Male colleague and friend of Mr Schuh since 1992

“I became aware of Peter’s relationship with Sabine in July 2012 when I met up with Peter in Brisbane…I believe and have witnessed the relationship to be genuine and continuing”

36.      Another sister of Mr Schuh

“I first met Sabine Sauerzapf 30/11/12 to 2/12/12 (approx.) when my brother, Peter Schuh, brought her to my eldest daughter’s home in Rockhampton for the weekend…The purpose of the visit was for my family to meet Peter’s new partner, Sabine…I believe the relationship between Sabine and Peter to be of a genuine and lasting nature. My brother Peter doesn’t take any relationship lightly and is not in the habit of having casual relationships. He is always loyal, and a man of integrity in all areas of his life. Those he loves he cherishes and treats with the utmost honour and respect. I see this in his relationship with Sabine. The fact that he has been willing to constantly travel back and forth from Vienna numerous times a year, to maintain this relationship, convinces me that he and Sabine had a genuine loving and permanent relationship.”

37.      Mr Schuh’s accountant

“I have met (Sabine) face to face on two separate occasions, in November 2012 and May 2013. The applicant and her partner (my client) both visited my office to discuss my client’s financial and accounting affairs. On both occasions, after the business meetings were held, I had lunch with both in order to socialise with them and observe the nature of their relationship. On each occasion, the meeting and lunch would last around 2-3 hours in duration. As part of my advisory services, it is important to spend such time to get an understanding as to the mode of life of my clients so I can obtain information to make relevant assessments for tax purposes e.g. tax residency. I also look to make assessments as to the nature of the relationship so I can advise how to best structure ownership to protect my clients’ asset and wealth portfolios. … At all times, I had the impression that the parties do not wish to be separated for long periods of time and wish to live together.

38.      Another sister of Mr Schuh

“I have known the applicant Sabine Sauerzapf for 3 ½ years (since April 2012) when they began a committed relationship…I was first introduced to Sabine Sauerzapf on 1 September 2012 when my brother brought her to Australia for a holiday and to meet our family. Sabine was invited to attend my son’s wedding in Fiji with Peter on 1^st November 2012 and we spent time together in Fiji until 5^th November 2012. Sabine stayed in Australia with Peter until 16^th January 2013 when Peter accompanied Sabine back to Austria...Peter arrived back in Australia 5^th February 2013 and stayed until 13^th March when he went back to Vienna until early April. Sabine joined Peter in Australia again on 1^st May 2013 thus they spent time together in Australia and Vienna.

In September 2013 Sabine joined Peter and other family members on a trip to Japan.

In October 2013 I flew to Vienna and met with Sabine and Peter and accompanied them to Ljubljana where Peter ran in a marathon. I also spent time with them both in Austria. I was introduced to Sabine’s parents at their home in Gloggnitz on 1^st November 2013. I was also taken to Sabine’s workplace and met some of her co-workers.

On 7^th Novemver 2013 I met Sabine and Peter in London and together we travelled to Iceland where we spent 5 days on holiday.

Sabine accompanied Peter back to Australia in time for 2013 New Year’s Eve…”

39.      Female friend and colleague of Mr Schuh of 11 years

“I have known Sabine since she was introduced to me through Peter Schuh when she came to Childers on holidays in September 2012. On (this) occasion since this time we have had many social gatherings with friends including both Sabine and Peter…From when I first found out Sabine and Peter were in a relationship I knew that it would be a long-term commitment.”

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of the visa application there was extensive recognition of the parties as being in a de facto relationship by the parties’ family, friends and colleagues. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of the visa application, the parties had undertaken many joint social activities together including together and with family and friends.

2. Having taken all of these matters into account, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of the visa application, the parties represented themselves as being in a long-term committed relationship and had undertaken a number of significant social activities together and in company with others.

   Nature of persons’ commitment to each other

3. As already referred to, at the time of the visa application Mr Schuh and Ms Sauerzapf had spent over 437 of the preceding 623 days residing together. Given they were both resident in and citizens of countries vastly separated geographically, this was achieved by numerous trips by each of the parties back and forward between Australia and Austria. Between April 2012 and December 2013, Mr Schuh made 11 trips to visit Ms Sauerzapf and Ms Sauerzapf made five trips to visit Mr Schuh.

4. Prior to forming a romantic relationship, the parties had already been known to each other for over two years and had remained in contact during that entire period.

5. The Tribunal is of the view that spending over 70% of their time together in the 20 months preceding the time of the visa application, at a not insignificant cost, is a very strong indicator of the strength of the parties’ commitments to each other.

6. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of the visa application, both parties had knowledge of each other’s prior relationships, indicative of an intimacy and level of commitment between the parties that would be expected of their claimed relationship.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of the visa application the parties had a very significant commitment to each other.

8. Having taken all matters into account, including the r.1.09A(3) matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of the visa application, Mr Schuh and Ms Sauerzapf had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, that the relationship between them was genuine and continuing and that they did not live apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.5CB(2) were met at the time of the visa application.

9. As the requirements of s.5CB(2) have been met, Ms Sauerzapf was the de facto partner of Mr Schuh at the time of the visa application and the requirements of cl.309.211 were met at the time of the visa application on that basis.

   Were the additional criteria for a de facto relationship met?

   Were each of the parties at least 18 years of age?

10. The Tribunal has sighted identification documents for both Mr Schuh and Ms Sauerzapf and is satisfied that they were both at least 18 years of age at all relevant times.

    Had the parties been in a de facto relationship for at least 12 months prior to the date of the visa application?

11. For the reasons already canvassed, the Tribunal is satisfied that a de facto relationship existed between Mr Schuh and Ms Sauerzapf from some time in 2012. The very nature of these types of relationships, particularly in circumstances where the parties live in different countries, is that pinpointing a precise date upon which a relationship might have changed from that of dating to that of being in a de facto relationship, is necessarily not always possible. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of both parties that they committed to an exclusive relationship on 26 April 2012. The Tribunal is not necessarily satisfied that the parties could be said to be in a de facto relationship at that time, however the Tribunal is of the view that by around September 2012, the parties had committed to a long-term relationship. Since April 2012 they had spent all possible time living together and both parties’ consistent evidence was that by September 2012 they were making plans together well into the future. The Tribunal is of the view that, at the very latest, they were in a de facto relationship by November 2012 when they together visited Mr Schuh’s accountant to discuss financial and accounting affairs. This was at least 12 months prior to the time of the visa application on 19 December 2013.

12. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the additional criteria prescribed in r.2.03A were met at the time of the visa application.

    Issue 2 - Did the cl.309.211 criteria continue to be satisfied at the time of decision?

13. The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties continue to be de facto partners. The evidence of the parties is that they continue to spend as much time together, in either Austria or Australia, as has been allowed by their various visas from time to time, their work commitments and given the taxation advice received from Mr Schuh’s accountant. The Tribunal notes that since the time of the visa application, Mr Schuh has made a further nine trips to Austria and Ms Sauerzapf has made a further two trips to Australia, resulting in the parties spending a very significant portion of the intervening time together. Further the parties have continued to travel together extensively.

14. The Tribunal notes that the parties have taken steps since the time of the visa application consistent with a continuing relationship as claimed, including the naming of Mr Schuh as beneficiary of Ms Sauerzapf’s life insurance and Mr Schuh naming Ms Sauerzapf as a significant beneficiary under his will.

15. Statutory declarations from family, friends and colleagues attest as to the continuing relationship between the parties and the continuing recognition of the parties as long term partners. Various emails and joint invitations to various social occasions have been provided.

16. Both parties’ evidence as to their future plans was entirely consistent including as to the options around starting a family together, the possibility of marriage in the future and the probable preference of Ms Sauerzapf to live in a larger city in the long term rather than Childers.

17. Having taken all of these matters into account, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Schuh and Ms Sauerzapf continue to have a mutual commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others, that the relationship between them is genuine and continuing and that they do not live apart on a permanent basis.

18. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.5CB(2) continue to be met at the time of decision, that is that Ms Sauerzapf continues to be the de facto partner of Mr Schuh pursuant to s.5CB(2) of the Act. It follows that the cl.309.211 criteria continue to be satisfied at the time of the decision and cl.309.221 is therefore also met.

19. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa by Ms Sauerzapf so that the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa may be considered.

    DECISION

    The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

    · cl.309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    · cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    ·     r.2.03A of the Regulations

    Susan Trotter
    Member

    ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

    1.09ADe facto partner and de facto relationship

    (1)For subsection 5CB (3) of the Act, this regulation sets out arrangements for the purpose of determining whether 1 or more of the conditions in paragraphs 5CB (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act exist.

    Note 1   See regulation 2.03A for the prescribed criteria applicable to de facto partners.

    Note 2   The effect of subsection 5CB (1) of the Act is that a person is the de facto partner of another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) if the person is in a de facto relationship with the other person.

    Subsection 5CB (2) sets out conditions about whether a de facto relationship exists, and subsection 5CB (3) permits the regulations to make arrangements in relation to the determination of whether 1 or more of those conditions exist.

    (2)If the Minister is considering an application for:

    (a)a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; or

    (b)a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa; or

    (c)a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa; or

    (d)a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa;

    the Minister must consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, including the matters set out in subregulation (3).

    (3)The matters for subregulation (2) are:

    (a)the financial aspects of the relationship, including:

    (i)       any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; and

    (ii)      any joint liabilities; and

    (iii)     the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments; and

    (iv)    whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other; and

    (v)     the basis of any sharing of day‑to‑day household expenses; and

    (b)the nature of the household, including:

    (i)       any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; and

    (ii)      the living arrangements of the persons; and

    (iii)     any sharing of the responsibility for housework; and

    (c)the social aspects of the relationship, including:

    (i)       whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being in a de facto relationship with each other; and

    (ii)      the opinion of the persons’ friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and

    (iii)     any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities; and

    (d)the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other, including:

    (i)       the duration of the relationship; and

    (ii)      the length of time during which the persons have lived together; and

    (iii)     the degree of companionship and emotional support that the persons draw from each other; and

    (iv)    whether the persons see the relationship as a long‑term one.

    (4)If the Minister is considering an application for a visa of a class other than a class mentioned in subregulation (2), the Minister may consider any of the circumstances mentioned in subregulation (3).