1707512 (Migration)

[2018] AATA 5003

1707512 (Migration) [2018] AATA 5003 (8 October 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1707512

MEMBER:Linda Holub

DATE:8 October 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.

Statement made on 08 October 2018 at 11:56am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) – Subclass 820 (Spouse) – insufficient evidence of the relationship – applicant’s conflicting evidence about the relationship – adverse information – sham marriage claims – child of the relationship – paternity questioned – credibility issues – decision under review remitted for reconsideration

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F, 65, 359AA, 376, 375A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 r 1.15A cls 820.211, 820.221

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 23 March 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who is a national of China, born in March 1986 applied for the visa on 13 April 2015 on the basis of her relationship with her sponsor. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.820.211(2)(a) and 820.211 because the delegate found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence in relation to a number of aspects of the relationship. 

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 August 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

5. At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the decision of the delegate and the issue that it must decide. In this context, the Tribunal referred to a submission dated 21 August 2018 provided by the applicant’s migration agent, on her behalf. It states that the “case rests solely on her meeting the criteria at the date of hearing in regulation 820.221(3)(b)(ii) relating to the care and custody of the child born to the sponsor and the applicant”. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the Migration Act as it relates to her application does not contain date of hearing criterion. The Act refers to date of decision and/or the date of application.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

Background

1. The applicant arrived in Australia on a TU-573 Higher Education Sector Student visa on 30 July 2014.  In applying for a Partner visa she claimed that she and the sponsor first met in October 2014 and a copy of their marriage certificate shows that the marriage was registered on 27 March 2015.  On 25 January 2017 the Department wrote to the applicant advising her that it had received information that her relationship with the sponsor had ended and provided her with an opportunity to respond.  The applicant gave birth to her child on [date].

Relevant law

1. At that time, Class UK contained only one subclass: Subclass 820 (Partner (Temporary)). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 820 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.

2. Clauses 820.211(2)(a) and 820.221 require that at the time the visa application was made, and at the time of this decision, the 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 the applicant claims that her relationship with the sponsor has broken down and she seeks an exception on the basis of the child of the relationship.

10) ‘Spouse’ is defined in s.5F of the Act and provides that a person is the spouse of another where the two persons are in a married relationship. Persons in a married relationship must be married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act, there must be a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship must be genuine and continuing, and the couple must live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis: s.5F(2)(a)-(d). In forming an opinion about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties’ household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision.

Are the parties validly married?

11) If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a spousal relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The applicant provided a copy of a marriage certificate showing that she and her former sponsor registered their marriage on 27 March 2015. On the evidence, the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act as required by s.5F(2)(a).

Credibility

12) The Tribunal had concerns regarding the applicant’s given her oral evidence that she used copies of her former sponsor’s ID to list him as the father on her child’s birth certificate and she listed her own address as the address of her former sponsor even though he had not lived at the address for some six to eight months prior to the birth of the child.  Her credibility was also undermined as a result of  various inconsistencies between her oral and written evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

Sponsorship and birth of the applicant’s child

13) As noted above, the decision of the Department refers to information received by the Department on 20 January 2017 that that the visa applicant was no longer in a relationship with her sponsor.  The applicant was provided with an opportunity to comment on that information.  In response she provided evidence that she was pregnant and at that time the estimated date of delivery was [date] September 2017.  She also submitted to the Department a statement about the breakdown of the relationship with her former sponsor. In it she refers to initially being happy with the sponsor but that they had financial problems.  It states he had trouble finding work and that he gambled and drank and asked her for money. It states that the sponsor suffered from depression.  She submitted that the sponsor’s request for money became more frequent and he became aggressive if she did not have money.  According to the applicant he threatened to divorce her and that he would withdraw the sponsorship of her partner visa application.  She states that he demanded sex of her to prove her love.  She was frightened and confused.  She states that she found that she pregnant in November 2016 but that the sponsor did not care.  In December 2016, she decided she could no longer give him money because she had a child to think of now.  In the submission she states that she had been living in a state of anxiety and tension.

14) The delegate’s decision states that as there is no child of the relationship born yet, the delegate gave no weight to that evidence as evidence that the applicant and her sponsor had a child from the relationship.  The delegate noted that aside from the evidence of the applicant being pregnant, she “had not provided other evidence which would indicate that the relationship prior to its breakdown that she and the sponsor were in a genuine and committed de facto relationship”[1]. The delegate having considered all the evidence and information provided, did not consider it was sufficient to demonstrate that she was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor.  Consequently, the delegate did not assess whether she met the family violence provisions.

[1] AAT file, folio 11.

15) The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the birth certificate of the applicant’s daughter who was born on [date].  The former sponsor is listed as the child’s father.  Both the applicant and her former sponsor are listed on the certificate as informants.  The address of both parties listed on the certificate is the address claimed by the applicant to be the address the parties lived at together from 27 September 2015 to January 2017.

16) In the submission provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing, the applicant claimed that she and “the sponsor remained in a relationship until late January 2017 when the sponsor left [their property]”[2] and at hearing she stated that she not seen the sponsor since “about February-March 2017.”  She stated that since that time he has never visited again. Despite this, the birth certificate which shows that her child born on [date], lists the former sponsor at the same address and as a co-informant.

[2] AAT file, folio 81. 

17) The Tribunal took up this issue with the applicant and asked why the sponsor’s previous address is listed on the certificate if he has not lived at that address since early 2017.  She stated that his address remains unchanged.  When asked how he uses the property she responded that it was the only address she could use for the baby’s birth certificate. The applicant provided oral evidence she used photocopies of documents to register the sponsor as the father.  The Tribunal put it to her that at face value she may have provided false information to register her baby’s birth.  She responded that it is their joint rental property.  The Tribunal questioned whether her former sponsor was still listed on the lease and if he still paid rent.  She responded that he does not pay rent and she is unsure as to whether he is listed on the lease.  The Tribunal asked her how it could be defined as their joint rental property if she does not know if he is on the lease, he does not pay rent and she had not seen him since February-March 2017.  She responded that she was not aware that she was providing false information.  The Tribunal put it to her that this claim was difficult to accept as she must be aware that her former sponsor had not been living with her for many months.  She responded that she knew that but she did not know she was wrong to provide that address as his address.

18) The Tribunal has had regard to information on the NSW Department of Justice website in respect of registering the birth of a child with Births, Deaths and Marriages that three forms of ID are required in respect of the parents.  The website refers to the types of ID required in four categories:

a.Category 1 - an Australian or New Zealand (NZ) Birth Certificate, or an Australian Citizenship Certificate or NZ Citizenship Certificate with Passport.

b.Category 2 – an Australian Driver’s License, an Australian Passport, Firearms License, or a Foreign Passport or a Proof of Age Card.

c.Category 3 – Medicare Card, Centrelink Card, Department of Veterans Affairs Card, Security/Crowd Control License or a Tertiary Education Institution ID Card.[3]

[3] See:  accessed 25 September 2018.

19) The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant may not have had another address to use for her former sponsor but considers the applicant’s oral evidence that she used copies of ID documents available to her in relation to her former sponsor to register him as the father of her child’s birth and to list him as a co-informant and as residing at her address when he had not done so for some six to eight months as a serious issue and one that undermines her credibility.

20) The Tribunal notes that the applicant provided a copy of the front page of her child’s passport.  The Tribunal notes that the passport was issued on [date] 2017.  The Tribunal has had regard to advice on the Australian Government passport website which that:

“Written consent must be given by each person who has parental responsibility for the child to have an Australian passport.

Generally, people with parental responsibility are the parents named on the child's full birth certificate; their parental responsibility can only be removed by an Australian court”[4].

[4] See: accessed, 4 October 2018.

21) No evidence was provided by the applicant that an Australian court has removed parental responsibility in relation to the child’s claimed father.  The Tribunal is troubled by the baby having been issued with a passport in the light of the applicant’s claims that she has not had contact with the claimed father since about March 2017 and therefore questions remain as to how written consent was provided by the claimed father in order for the child to have been issued with a passport.

Are the other requirements for a spousal relationship met?

22) The Tribunal has considered the evidence in relation to the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other including the duration of the relationship, the length of time they have lived together, the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other and whether they see the relationship as long-term.

23) The applicant stated that she arrived in Australia by herself and met her former sponsor at a friend’s wedding.  She stated that he was very low at the time and then she appeared.  She stated that he initially looked after her well and when he found out that she was living in harsh conditions, he found her new accommodation. He would ask about her and was concerned about what she was eating.  She stated that she supported her former sponsor but when asked to provide examples, she responded in very general terms that they talked a lot and that she consoled him if he was feeling low.  She stated that he was depressed when they first met but they supported and cared for each other and the situation improved for a while.  Her sponsor went to [Country 1] to [work] for some months in 2015.  She stated that when they spoke by telephone he would sometimes be nasty to her and said things that were intolerable and at other times he was warm and affectionate.

24) The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s claims in a statement to the Department dated 20 July 2017[5].  In it she states:

[5] At hearing the Tribunal raised with the applicant that it appeared that the submission was incorrectly dated.  It outlines early aspects of the claimed relationship and a  related statement provided by her then sponsor was dated 30 July 2016.  The applicant’s migration agent conceded it was probably incorrectly dated.

“In 2015 [Mr A] travelled to [Country 1] for employment purpose, to [work] in a college for some time.  When I did not see [Mr A], I would become so absent-minded, and was in no spirit of doing things.  [Mr A] is even more dependant (sic) on me in many aspects, such as emotionally and physically.  Both of us hoped to be together forever”[6].

[6] DIBP file, folio 31.

25) These differing presentations of her relationship with her former sponsor cast doubt on the applicant’s credibility.  They appear to be done to present a view of the relationship that most suit her purpose at the time.

26) The Tribunal asked the applicant if her former sponsor travelled overseas prior to the trip to [Country 1]. She responded that he did not and then said she did not know. The Tribunal put information to her under s. 359AA of the Migration Act. Departmental records show that her former sponsor went overseas approximately one week after they married. Their marriage was registered on 27 March 2015 and he left on 3 April 2015 and returned on 7 April 2015. She responded that he often did not come home. He went off to gamble and did not allow her to ask where he had gone. When he returned home he was happy. She stated that he sometimes did not return for several days. The Tribunal found that this response was inconsistent with the applicant’s statement of 27 February 2017 to the Department, where she wrote:

“On 27 March 2015 [Mr A] and I were married.  I thought I was the luckiest girl in the world”[7].

[7] DIBP file, folio 128.

27) The Tribunal has had regard to the discrepancies in the applicant’s claims.  On the one hand she claimed to be “the luckiest girl in the world” at the end of March 2015 when she married, but on the other hand, claimed at hearing when evidence was put to her about the sponsor’s travel overseas within days of them marrying that he would often be away for days at a time without telling her.  The fact of the applicant’s former sponsor travelling overseas a few days without her knowledge around the time of them marrying can be interpreted that they were not in a genuine relationship.  Her explanation that he often disappeared for days at a time, even around the time they married, contradicts her own written statement of being ‘the luckiest girl in the world’ and raises doubts about the genuineness of the relationship.

28) At hearing the applicant claimed that they talked about having two children and that her former sponsor wanted her to learn English and for her to become [an occupation]because he liked children very much.  He also planned to stop drinking and asking her for money but he did not change. She stated that she realised he had a gambling problem even before they married but she didn’t fully appreciate how serious the problem was. She said it caused conflict in their marriage. 

29) The Tribunal considered the evidence regarding the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other.  The Tribunal found the evidence of the applicant unpersuasive about aspects of the relationship as it lacked detail and because of the inconsistencies in the evidence.  The evidence shows that days after the couple registered their marriage and just prior to the lodgement of the visa application, her former sponsor travelled overseas and the applicant appeared not to be aware of it and then claimed that he often did not return.  The Tribunal is not satisfied the parties were at any time in a genuine, continuing and committed relationship.

30) The Tribunal has had regard to whether the parties have any joint ownership of assets or joint liabilities, the extent of pooling of financial resources, any legal obligations owed to the other party and any sharing of day-to-day household expenses.

31) At hearing the applicant stated that at the time of application she and her sponsor did not have any joint assets.  In relation to whether they had any debts, she stated that from time to time she borrowed money from friends because her sponsor did not have a stable job and she did not earn very much and then returned the money after she was paid.  The applicant gave evidence that although they had a joint account she normally did not use the account.  She stated that she was paid in cash and that she mostly paid everything in cash.  When asked if her sponsor’s salary was paid into the account, she stated that she has no idea and then stated he never brought money home.  The applicant gave evidence that she paid for everything herself from her own money.

32) The written submission of 21 August 2018 to the Tribunal states that in relation to the lack of sharing of finances, the applicant asserts that the she was unable to allow sharing of finances when she became aware of her husband’s gambling addiction.  She was also unable to rely on the sponsor to take responsibility for what should have been joint expenses such as utility bills and accordingly was obliged to put these accounts in her sole name.  The applicant submits that it is hardly surprising having regard to the financial circumstances of the parties that they failed to acquire real estate or other major assets.

33) The Tribunal has had regard to these claims but no evidence was provided in relation to this claim nor was the applicant specific about the timing of the gambling problems emerging.  This lack of detail was of concern to the Tribunal as it appeared, she was deliberately evasive.  The Tribunal has had regard to contradictory evidence.  In a statement made by the visa applicant in to the Department dated 20 July 2017[8], states that:

[8] See footnote 5.

“[Mr A] and I have lived together very happily.  My husband is now working [in a certain role], mostly on night duties.

[Mr A] and I are getting settled more and more in Australia.  We plan to buy our own unit and have one to two children of our own in not long future.

[Mr A] and I believe we found our own genuine love, and much treasure our relationship (sic)”[9].

[9] DIBP file, folio 31.

34) If the statement was provided in mid-2016 (rather than 2017 as dated)[10], it appears that at least 12 months after they married, the relationship was on an even keel and there were no concerns about their financial arrangements as a result of the sponsor’s gambling or dinking.  The Tribunal has also had regard to a claim made towards the end of the hearing by the applicant’s migration agent that the former sponsor spent an extended time working in [County 1]in 2015 ‘possibly to break the drinking and gambling cycle’.  This appears to be inconsistent with the portrayal of the relationship in that submission.  Based on inconsistences in evidence and a lack of specificity of the claims made by the applicant, the Tribunal did not find the evidence convincing.  The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the financial aspects of the relationship reflect those of a genuine and committed relationship either at the time of application or at the time of decision.

[10] See footnote 5.

35) The Tribunal considered the nature of the household including any joint responsibility for care and support of children, the parties' living arrangements and any sharing of housework.

36) At hearing, the applicant stated that she undertook all the household chores.  This is broadly consistent with her 20 July 2017[11] submission to the Department that she is mainly responsible for home duties.  Based on the applicant oral evidence that she has not seen her former sponsor since about March 2017, the Tribunal finds that he has had no role in the care of the child.

[11] See footnote 5.

37) The Tribunal has considered whether a child of the relationship allays its concerns regarding the genuineness of the relationship. However, in view of the applicant’s claims that she has had no contact with the claimed father since around March 2017, the inconsistencies in evidence, the differing portrayals of the relationship put forward by the applicant and the Tribunal’s concerns in respect to how she obtained a birth certificate and passport for the child, the Tribunal did not find that the birth of a claimed child of the relationship was sufficient to be persuasive.

38) Therefor overall, the Tribunal finds that the evidence before it does not support a finding that the nature of the couple’s household arrangement reflects that of a genuine and committed relationship existed at the time of application or at time of decision.

39) The Tribunal has considered whether the parties represented themselves to other people as being married to each other, the opinion of friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship and any basis on which the persons planned and undertook joint social activities.

40) The applicant submitted copies of photographs of herself and her former spouse in various settings, including of their wedding.  The applicant also submitted tickets to a number of events.  The fact that they took some photographs together and bought tickets to events does not satisfy the Tribunal that they were committed to the relationship.  That is, if the relationship was not genuine but a person wished to obtain evidence to convince authorities that it was, the same documents could have been obtained. As such, the Tribunal does not consider the documentary evidence to be dispositive of the issues at hand.

41) The Tribunal has considered the Statutory Declarations provided in support of the relationship.  In one of the Declarations, dated 9 September 2016 there is reference to the declarant being introduced to the sponsor outside the restaurant when he picked up the applicant after work.  It does not outline further contact with the couple but attests to the relationship being genuine an ongoing spousal relationship.  The Tribunal did not find the Declaration provided insights into the relationship such that it was persuasive as to its genuineness.

42) The other Declaration from a friend of the sponsor, dated 13 September 2016, refers to meeting the visa applicant at a restaurant and subsequently sometimes meeting with the parties.  It describes the considerations of the parties to each other.  It also makes reference to the parties being very serious about the relationship and the declarant took the relationship to be a long term one.  The Tribunal did not give this statements significant weight as such statements are only of value as an attestation of the parties declaring their relationship to the declarants but of little other probative value.

Adverse information/non-disclosure certificates

43) The Tribunal put to the applicant adverse information contained in the Department’s file consistent with the requirements of section 359AA of the Migration Act. That information is that the applicant was in a sham marriage and that she has had a baby with her boyfriend, who is not the sponsor. The applicant became emotional when the information was put to her. The Tribunal encouraged her to take time to compose herself and asked if she would like an adjournment. She declined the offer of an adjournment. When asked if she wished to comment on or respond to the information she stated that the relationship with her former sponsor has cost her dearly and that now there are even allegations raised in respect of her child. She stated that no one cares about her baby. She added that her relationship with her former sponsor was true. The Tribunal informed the applicant it does not generally put weight on anonymous allegations.

44) The Tribunal informed the applicant that there are two certificates on the Department's file, one of which is under s.375A and the other under s.376 of the Migration Act. At hearing the Tribunal discussed the certificates with the applicant and indicated its finding regarding the validity and relevance of both certificates, that is, that both certificates are valid and some of the related folios are relevant to its decision. The Tribunal explained its reasoning for its findings. In relation to validity, the Tribunal explained that the wording used on the certificates is consistent with the requirements of the relevant sections of the Migration Act. The Tribunal also indicated that it was of the view that the part of the information in the referenced folios is relevant to its decision because it relates to the genuineness of the relationship, which had already been discussed with the applicant. Other elements of the related documents were not relevant because they are about process the Department planned to undertake and did not pertain to the relationship of the parties.

45) The applicant was provided an opportunity to respond. She responded in relation to the s.376 certificate that she has no comment as she has no idea on whether the certificate is relevant and valid and in relation to the s.375A certificate she responded that she has no comment to make.

Oral submission of the applicant’s migration agent

46) The migration agent asked whether in view of the allegation that the applicant was in a sham marriage, photographs of the visa applicant’s current accommodation arrangements would be of assistance.  The Tribunal reminded him that in the first instance it must be satisfied as to the genuineness of the relationship at the time of application and it was difficult to see how photographs of her current living arrangements would substantiate the time of application (13 April 2015) criteria.  Furthermore, the Tribunal has not given any weight to the allegation.

47) The migration agent stated that the applicant had given evidence that it was her view that the relationship is genuine, even though it was not perfect.  Despite that, it could be a genuine relationship for a significant period of time.  He believes she has given consistent evidence and provided photographs of the couple in different settings.  He stated that it should not be at all surprising that they did not use the joint bank account given the former sponsor’s gambling problem.  He commented on the fact that no evidence was tendered in relation to the former sponsor spending an extended time in [Country 1] working but he understands that the sponsor’s family encouraged him to go there to break the cycle.

48) The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is of the view that the relationship was genuine for a significant period.  However, in the light of credibility concerns, the Tribunal was unable to come to the same conclusion.  While some of her written and oral evidence was consistent and she provided photographs, of itself those facts do not establish the genuineness of the relationship.  Furthermore, other aspects were inconsistent and raised doubts about the applicant’s credibility.  The Tribunal has already indicated that it did not accept claims in regard the former sponsor’s gambling.

Overall findings

49) The Tribunal finds that on the basis of the evidence presented and the concerns regarding the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal is not satisfied that either at the time of application and at the time of the decision the applicant and her sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, that the relationship was genuine and lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis.

50) Therefore the applicant does not meet cl.820.211(2)(a) and cl.820.221.

51) Given these findings, the Tribunal did not consider cl.820.221(3).

52) On the evidence before the Tribunal the requirements of cl.820.211 and cl.820.221 are not met.

53) For the reasons above, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.

DECISION

54) The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.

Linda Holub
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

1.15A     Spouse

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

1. 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 married to 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.

2. 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).