1805643 (Migration)

[2022] AATA 2425

1805643 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2425 (30 June 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Rami Yousif (MARN: 1680519)

CASE NUMBER:  1805643

MEMBER:Moira Brophy

DATE:30 June 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 30 June 2022 at 3:20pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) – Subclass 820 (Partner) – genuine and continuing relationship – validly married – financial, household and social aspects of relationship and nature of commitment – vague, confused, conflicting and unconvincing evidence – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F(2)(b)-(d), 65, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 820.211(2)(a), 820.221

CASE
MILGEA v Dhillon (FCA, 8 May 1990, unreported)

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

ISSUE

1. The issue in the present case is whether [the applicant] and [his sponsoring spouse] were at the time of application in a genuine relationship and whether at the time of decision they continue to be in a genuine relationship.

   APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

2. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

3. The applicant applied for the visa on 29 March 2016 on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor. At that time, Class UK contained only one subclass: Subclass 820 (Partner). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 820 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.

4. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl 820.211 because the delegate was not satisfied the parties were in a genuine and continuing relationship at the time of application.

5. [The applicant] appeared before the Tribunal on 10 March 2022, 26 April 2022 and 17 May 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [the sponsor], from the mother of the sponsor, [Mrs A], and from [Ms B], a friend of the sponsor, and from a friend of the applicant, [Mr C]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

6. The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

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

   Background

8. [The applicant] was born on [Date 1] in Amman, Jordan. He has declared no previous relationships. His father is deceased, his mother, one brother and one sister reside in [Country], and he has one brother living in Jordan.

9. The applicant came to Australia [in] May 2015 on a Visitor (Subclass 600) visa valid to 10 August 2015. The applicant was granted a further visitor visa which was valid until 20 April 2016. On 29 March 2016 the applicant lodged an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa and a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) (Subclass 801) visa on the grounds of being in a spousal relationship with [an Australian citizen (the sponsor)]. A Bridging WA (Subclass 010) visa was granted.

10. [The applicant’s sponsor] was born in Australia on [Date 2]. She has declared no previous relationships. She has a son, [Master D], who was born on [Date, Year 3]. Her parents, one sister and two brothers are residing in Australia.

11. At the time of application, the parties stated that they met on 19 June 2015 in [Suburb 1], Sydney. They committed to each other to the exclusion of all others on 1 August 2015, the applicant proposed marriage on 1 January 2016, and they were married [in] February 2016 at [Suburb 2]. (A copy of the marriage certificate is at folio 23 of the DIAC file.)

12. Prior to the hearing, the applicant provided documents to the Tribunal including bank statements for accounts held by the applicant and the sponsor and a residential tenancy agreement and a copy of the delegate’s decision record.

    Tribunal proceedings

13. At the commencement of the first hearing, the Tribunal put the applicant on notice that it would bring to the applicant’s attention under s 359AA of the Act any evidence which was inconsistent either with the evidence of the sponsor or with other evidence provided by the applicant if that evidence would lead the Tribunal to make adverse findings as to the credibility of the applicant and if that would lead the Tribunal to make findings that the applicant was not in the relationship he claimed to be in.

14. In the matter presently before the Tribunal, there have been three hearings. Both the applicant and his sponsor gave evidence at the time of the first hearing. The Tribunal indicated at the conclusion of that hearing that further documentation was required and that the Tribunal intended to hold a second hearing. At the time of the second hearing, the applicant advised the Tribunal that the sponsor had been very stressed by the proceedings and would not be attending the hearing. The Tribunal indicated that there were certain matters arising out of the evidence that it wished would put to the parties and indicated that if the applicant requested an adjournment to allow the sponsor to be present on the next occasion, the Tribunal would agree to that request. The applicant requested an adjournment, and it was granted.

15. At the time of the third hearing, the parties were both in attendance and the Tribunal discussed with them at some length concerns arising from the evidence given at the first hearing. The Tribunal invited the applicant to respond to certain information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to his comments or response, be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. The information the Tribunal sought comment on was information given at the time of hearing. The matters raised will be referred to in the reasons below.

16. At the conclusion of the third hearing, the applicant was granted additional time to provide any further evidence he wished the Tribunal to consider.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

17. In making its findings, the Tribunal has considered the documents contained in the Department and Tribunal files, as well as the oral evidence provided at the three hearings by the applicant, his sponsor and their witnesses, as well as the submissions received.

18. When considering the totality of the evidence given over three hearings, the Tribunal considers the oral evidence given by the applicant and the sponsor to be confused, conflicting and unconvincing. The Tribunal was concerned the parties frequently sought to adjust answers and sought wherever possible to evade giving an answer especially when the questions pertained to their finances, personal details and living arrangements. The Tribunal did not consider it plausible that the parties could fail to remember pertinent details about financial details such as the source of monies going into the applicant’s account, details of the applicant’s son such as how old he was at the time they met, and how many nights they spent together each week. The Tribunal was concerned the answers the parties gave were deliberately vague in an attempt to not disclose any information they considered may be prejudicial to the claim. The lack of knowledge and the frequent shifting of evidence displayed particularly by the applicant were not consistent with the relationship the parties claimed to have. Whilst it is appreciated that Tribunal proceedings can be very difficult for parties and this stress can of itself lead to some inconsistencies in the evidence given, the Tribunal is not satisfied the explanations given are sufficient to overcome the Tribunal’s concerns. The preparedness of the applicant to tailor his evidence to achieve his desired outcome undermined the credibility of his claim.

19. The cumulative effect of the inconsistencies referred to at the conclusion of the hearing coupled with the evasiveness of the applicant was such that the Tribunal did not consider him to be a credible witness. The Tribunal does not place significant weight on his evidence unless it is corroborated by reliable evidence from other sources.

    Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship

20. 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 to be the spouse of the sponsor who is an Australian citizen.

21. ‘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 reg 1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.

    Are the parties validly married?

22. If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a spousal relationship, but not a de facto relationship. Prior to hearing, there was nothing in the information before the Tribunal to cast doubt on the validity of the parties’ marriage on 19 February 2016 and it was not disputed by the delegate. Consequently, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds 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).

    Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?

    Financial

23. Financial aspects of the relationship – including joint ownership of assets; joint liabilities; extent of pooling of financial resources; any legal obligations owed to the other party; any sharing of day-to-day household expenses: The applicant told the Tribunal that since August 2018 he had been living in a three‑bedroom property at [Suburb 3]. He said he lived with the sponsor and her son. The applicant said that he pays the rent of $840 from their joint account and he pays every fortnight. The applicant said at the time of the first hearing that he was [an Occupation 1]. He works on [projects] and he had done that work since he came to Australia. He said he worked as [an Occupation 2] and he earned between $2,500 and $3,000 per week. The applicant said he was paid into his personal account and he then transfers into the joint account. The sponsor does not put money into the joint account as he pays for everything.

24. The sponsor said that she was living with the sponsor ‘on and off.’ She said she spends some nights with her mother. The sponsor gave consistent evidence as to the amount of rent and how it was paid. The sponsor said her only source of income was from Centrelink. She was in receipt of a carer payment for care she provided to her mother and she was previously paid family tax benefits, but they had ceased about three weeks prior to the first hearing. She said she received around $900 per fortnight. The sponsor said she did not contribute money to the joint account, and she did not have a card to access that account. She said if she needed to, she could borrow the applicant’s access card. She said she had recently used the card to buy petrol. When asked about her bank accounts, the sponsor said she had an account in her name only and the applicant did not have access to that account, but the applicant said he would be able to access it if he needed to.

25. An examination of the bank records provided supported the evidence of the applicant that his wages were deposited into an account in his name and from that account he transferred money into the joint account for the payment of rent. Statements from the joint account provided showed rent monies being paid from that account at regular intervals. It was apparent that the income of the applicant was deposited into an account in his name and the sponsor did not have access to his account.

26. When asked about other shared financial commitments other than the rent, both parties told the Tribunal they did not have shared finances. The applicant paid all costs at the property, they did not have any savings and they did not have any loans. The applicant said he did not have superannuation and he has not made a will.

27. On the evidence given, the parties do not have any joint ownership of property, and they have no shared assets and no shared liabilities other than the rent on the property they have recently moved to.

28. At the time of the third hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant about various entries in his account. He was not able to give an explanation for the monies being deposited into his account and labelled rent. He was also asked about regular payments to a gym and to Tinder. While the applicant gave explanations for those monies, which will be dealt with later, the applicant when taken to those same entries claimed to have no knowledge of either the payments or the purpose of the payments. When the applicant was asked about several cash withdrawals from the sponsor’s account over a very short period of time, he said he had no idea what those monies were being withdrawn for.

29. There was a paucity of evidence to make findings that either at the time of application or at the time of decision they pooled their financial resources or shared day‑to‑day household expenses. There was no evidence either party owed the other party any legal obligations other than the shared tenancy.

30. Overall, there is little information regarding the financial aspects of the relationship that supports a finding that the parties are in a genuine relationship either at the time of application or at the time of decision. The parties have only limited knowledge of each other’s financial affairs and there was very limited evidence of any intermingling. This does not support a finding that the financial aspects of the relationship are consistent with the parties being in a genuine and continuing relationship.

    Nature of the household

31. In assessing the nature of the household, the Tribunal has considered whether the parties have any joint responsibility for care and support of children; what their living arrangements are and if there is any sharing of housework.

32. In assessing the nature of the household, the Tribunal considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, given by the parties. The applicant initially told the Tribunal the parties had commenced living together after their marriage. The applicant said they lived together at [Suburb 4]. The Tribunal was mindful that at the time the parties were married, the address given for the applicant was [Address, Suburb 5], and for the sponsor was [Address, Suburb 3]. At the time of lodging this application, the applicant stated he had lived at [Address, Suburb 4], since February 2016. The Tribunal noted that the Residential Tenancy Agreement provided by the applicant for this address was for the period 20 August 2016 to 19 August 2017. Prior to that, according to his application, he had lived at [Address, Suburb 5], and he lived there in the period from August 2015 to February 2016. This was corroborated by the address given at the time of marriage. In the period from May 2015 to August 2015, according to his application, he had lived at [Address, Suburb 6], Victoria. The applicant’s initial evidence was that they resided together all the time since they married. He then revised his evidence to say initially he lived at [Suburb 4] and the sponsor at [Suburb 3] because she was caring for her mother. He said he moved to live in [Suburb 7] in late August 2018. When put to the applicant that on his evidence, the parties had not in fact lived together in the period from February 2016 to August 2018, the applicant agreed. The sponsor’s evidence was that she had lived at [Suburb 4] at the time of their marriage, and she had lived there for some time. She then said she officially moved to [Suburb 4] after their marriage and lived there full-time for a year and then she moved to her mother’s place. She said she presently resided with the applicant ‘on and off’, and when pressed to be more specific, she said ‘three or four days a week.’ This inconsistency was put to the parties at the third hearing under s 359AA of the Act. In providing an explanation for the inconsistency, the applicant said he was living in Auburn with a friend at the time the parties met, and he moved to [Suburb 4] after the parties married, but he was not able to recall if it was before or after their marriage. He said the applicant stayed at [Suburb 4] but not full-time because of her caring responsibilities to her mother. He said she stayed ‘maybe one night a week, sometimes two or three.’ He estimated the sponsor spent more than 50% of the time living with her mother. He said he moved to [Suburb 7] to enable the sponsor to be able to live with him but still be a carer to her mother. When asked why he had not moved until August 2018, he said he had not been able to move prior to that because of the costs involved if he were to break his lease. The Tribunal then put to the applicant that the lease he provided for the property at [Suburb 4] had in fact been for the period 20 August 2016 to 19 August 2017. The applicant was asked why he had not moved at the expiration of the lease in August 2017, and he said he could not recall. He then said the agent forced him to sign a further lease. He then told the Tribunal the renewal of the lease had been automatic. When the Tribunal put to the applicant that the Tribunal may find the conduct of the parties in not living together on a full-time basis, given their evidence that they were living together less than 50% of the time, to be conduct not consistent with the relationship the parties claimed to be in. The applicant said he understood that.

33. The Tribunal, in assessing the nature of the household, has also considered the payments labelled rent going into the applicant’s bank account from third parties during the time the applicant has lived at [Suburb 3]. While both the applicant and sponsor gave evidence that no third parties resided at the property at [Suburb 3] and the residential tenancy agreement was in both their names, the Tribunal found those bank deposits to be persuasive evidence that persons other than the applicant and sponsor had in fact lived at the property.

34. Given the conflicting evidence as to where they lived, for what period they resided at each address and the amount of time the sponsor actually spent living with the applicant, the Tribunal was not able to make findings of fact on this aspect of the nature of the household.

35. At the time of hearing, the parties gave consistent evidence that the sponsor has responsibility for the household chores and for the washing. The sponsor does the cooking. They sometimes do the grocery shopping together. Whoever does the grocery shopping would pay either from their personal account or the joint account.

1. The parties do not have shared responsibility for any children. While the son of the sponsor lives with them, he was the responsibility of the sponsor. Both parties gave evidence that the son of the sponsor stayed with her whether it be at the home of the applicant or the home of the sponsor’s mother. When the Tribunal asked if his father contributed to his financial needs, the sponsor said the father made no financial contribution but that the applicant buys things for him.

2. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence that there is a cooperative relationship between the parties, and that the sponsor occasionally stays at the home of the applicant. However, based on the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal was not able to distinguish between a situation where the applicant and sponsor are living on an occasional basis as a couple, or alternatively one where the applicant and the sponsor were in a cooperative relationship to assist the applicant to obtain a visa.

   Social aspects of the relationship

3. The Tribunal considered the social aspects of the relationship including whether parties represent 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 plan and undertake joint social activities.

4. The applicant provided to the Tribunal Form 88 statements from the following, who attested to the genuine nature of the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor:

   ·[Mr D], dated 28 April 2021;

   ·[Mr E], dated 27 April 2021;

   ·[Mr C], dated 28 April 2021;

   ·[Mr F], dated 28 April 2021.

5. The mother of the sponsor, [Mrs A], provided a statutory declaration dated 6 May 2022. [Mrs A] also gave oral testimony that while she had initial doubts about the relationship, she was now fully supportive and regarded the applicant as an important member of her family.

6. A change of contact details from [Suburb 3] Public School dated 3 February 2021 was provided showing the applicant was an emergency contact for the school to contact if needed for the son of the sponsor.

7. The sponsor provided a statement from Centrelink dated 26 April 2021 showing she was being paid at the non-partnered rate for her carer payment. A later statement dated 20 May 2022 was provided at the request of the Tribunal. It corroborated the oral testimony of the sponsor that she had declared the relationship to Centrelink.

8. The Tribunal accepts, based on the photographic evidence, the statements provided and the oral testimony, that the parties have socialised together with members of the sponsor’s immediate family and some mutual friends.

9. The Tribunal further accepts that the parties represent themselves to other people as being in a relationship. As to whether they plan and undertake joint social activities, the evidence was equivocal. The applicant said they had not undertaken family holidays and the sponsor said they had. This inconsistency was put to the parties at the time of the third hearing.

10. After considering all the information regarding the social aspects of the parties’ relationship, the Tribunal is satisfied their relationship is supported by some members of the sponsor’s family and some friends. In weighing all the available evidence regarding the social aspects of the parties’ relationship, the Tribunal finds it is indicative of a couple in a genuine and continuing relationship.

    Nature of the commitment

11. Nature of persons’ commitment to each other – including duration of the relationship; the length of time they have lived together; degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other; and whether they see the relationship as long-term: In considering the evidence as to the nature of the commitment the parties had to each other, the Tribunal was mindful that the evidence as to the length of any relationship between the applicant and the sponsor was equivocal, as was the evidence as to how long they lived together.

12. Taking into account the evidence given at hearing and the evidence given following the Tribunal putting the parties on notice regarding what it considered it to be an issue of some concern, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the parties have resided together on a continuing basis since their marriage. While the Tribunal accepts that parties in a relationship may live apart for periods and remain in a genuine and continuing relationship because of their commitment to that relationship, the Tribunal was concerned that the conduct of the parties in this matter was not consistent with an ongoing commitment to the relationship.

13. There was no evidence of there having been any wills made listing the other as beneficiary nor any evidence as to their being nominated as a beneficiary of the other’s superannuation.

14. The Tribunal accepts the parties have known each other since June 2015 and have been married since February 2016.

15. In assessing the commitment of the applicant to the relationship, the Tribunal has placed weight on his apparent lack of concern as to the son of the sponsor. At the first hearing, the applicant said he had met the sponsor when her son was one week old. When he was asked at the third hearing for the date of birth of her son, he said it was [Date, Year 4]. It was then put to him that would mean he had not been born at the time they met. By way of explanation, he said he was stressed. He then said he was in fact one year old when they met. When taken to the birth certificate that he had provided to the Tribunal, he said he had in fact been two months old at the time the parties met. Given this was the sponsor’s first and only child and the significant impact of that event on a new relationship, the Tribunal was concerned the lack of knowledge of the applicant was in fact an indicator of his lack of commitment to the relationship.

16. The Tribunal also raised with the applicant its concerns that the evidence of payments coming out of his personal account to a dating site were not indicative of a commitment to an exclusive relationship with the sponsor. The applicant said he had made a mistake by joining the site and then had been unable to cancel the deductions. When put to him that this evidence was not consistent with the relationship he claimed to be in, he said he planned to take the sponsor overseas to meet his family and he would not be doing that if the relationship was not genuine.

17. The evidence as to the parties’ commitment to each other was, when considered in its totality, confused and unconvincing. The Tribunal considered the oral evidence given by the parties at the time of hearing to be indicative of parties endeavouring to present their evidence in a manner designed to obtain a migration outcome. The Tribunal was concerned there was a lack of candour in the giving of the evidence by both parties to present their relationship as being a genuine and continuing relationship.

18. The Tribunal put the applicant on notice at the second hearing and the third hearing regarding its concerns that his primary commitment was to a visa and not to a genuine and continuing relationship with the sponsor.

19. In considering this, the Tribunal was mindful of recent judicial consideration of this issue. In Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Dhillon (Northrop, Wilcox and French JJ, 8 May 1990, unreported), a modern perspective of the common law in Australia, concerning cognisable motivations for marriage, has been restated as follows:

    ... people enter marriages with a variety of purposes and motives, hopes and anticipations, so that it is not possible to classify some purposes etc as according to what may be described as "community expectations". It is not necessarily inconsistent with a genuine marriage relationship that it was entered into by one or both parties with a view to material benefit or advancement, as for example with the hope of becoming eligible to reside in a particular country. The true test, we would suggest the only test, is whether at the time at which the matter has to be decided it can be said that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of others.

20. In the Tribunal’s view, the Act and Regulations provide clear guidance as to the matters that decision‑makers are to consider in assessing relationships for the purposes of a partner visa, and it is to these matters that regard must be had.

21. In this instance, the Tribunal was concerned that at the time of application and at the time of decision, there was little evidence of a commitment by the applicant to anything other than a visa and this was a distinguishing factor in this case.

22. After considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal has concluded that the nature of the commitment that the applicant showed at the time of application and at the time of decision was not indicative of a genuine and continuing spousal relationship.

    CONCLUSIONS

23. Given the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others and that the relationship was genuine and continuing at the time of application or at the time of decision. If the parties are not in a genuine and continuing relationship at the time of decision, they are unable to meet the statutory criteria for the grant of a visa.

24. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant does not meet the definition of ‘spouse’ in s 5F(2)(b)–(d) at the time of application.

25. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets cl 820.211(2)(a) at the time of application and she is therefore not able to meet cl 820.221 at the time of decision.

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

    DECISION

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

    Moira Brophy
    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).

    (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 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.

    (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).