2003568 (Migration)

2003568 (Migration) [2024] AATA 327 (31 January 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 2003568

MEMBER:Rachel Westaway
DATE:31 January 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.

Statement made on 31 January 2024 at 11:22pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 (Partner) – genuine and continuing relationship – sponsor’s different relationship declared to Centrelink – no pooling of financial resources – sponsor’s visit to the applicant in Vietnam – no recent supporting statements – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5F, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.15; Schedule 2, cls 820.211, 820.221
CASES
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206
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

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).
The applicant applied for the visa on 2 February 2018 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.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl 820.221(2)(a) because the delegate found that the applicant did not meet the definition of spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor, as defined under section 5F and 5CB of the Act.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the definition of spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor as defined under section 5F and 5CB of the Act.
Background
The applicant, [named], was born on [Date 1] in An Gaing, Vietnam and is [age] years old. The applicant listed one previous relationship which ended in divorce [in] November 2016. There were no children of the relationship.
The sponsor, [named], an Australian citizen, who was born on [Date 2] and is [age] years old. The sponsor listed one previous relationship which ended in separation [in] October 2017. There were two children of the relationship.
The applicant and the sponsor met in person for the first time on 1 March 2013, when the sponsor was still in a relationship with her previous partner. After the applicant divorced his partner in 2016, the applicant visited Australia in July 2017 to visit with the sponsor and her family and, after time spent together, they fell in love. In October 2017, the sponsor visited the applicant in Vietnam, and decided to end her relationship with her previous partner. In November 2017, the applicant returned to Melbourne to live with the sponsor and helped take care of her children. They committed to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others on 6 November 2017 and married [in] December 2017 in Melbourne, Victoria.
The Department Application
The applicant lodged a valid application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa and a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) (Subclass 801) visa on 2 February 2018 on the grounds of being in a partner relationship with an Australian citizen, the sponsor, who lodged a sponsorship in support of the application.
The following documents were provided to the Department in support of the application:
·Sponsor’s Victorian Birth Certificate
·Sponsor’s Australian passport biodata page
·Applicant’s Vietnamese Birth Certificate
·Applicant’s Vietnamese passport biodata page
·Certified Marriage Certificate registered [in] December 2017
·Applicant’s Vietnamese Marriage Certificate to ex-wife dated [in] October 2015
·Applicant’s Vietnamese Divorce certificate dated [in] November 2016
·Joint Relationship Statement dated 30 January 2018
·Photographs of the wedding ceremony
·Form 888 statutory declaration by [Ms A] dated 23 January 2018
·Form 888 statutory declaration by [Mr B] dated 25 January 2018
·Joint [Bank 1] account statement from January 2018
On 15 November 2019, the Department wrote to the applicant inviting them to comment on unfavourable information before the Department which did not support their visa application. This information included multiple allegations received by the Department that the applicant had entered into a contrived relationship with the sponsor for the sole purpose of gaining entry into Australia.
The Department also conducted checks with the Department of Human Services which indicated that the sponsor had listed a different residential address from where the applicant claims to reside with the sponsor, the sponsor had never declared that she was in a relationship with the applicant to Centrelink, and the sponsor had advised Centrelink that she was currently in a relationship with a person other than the applicant and had received benefits on this basis.
The letter provided the applicant with 28 days to comment on the information received by the Department, which the Department stated was evidence that the applicant was no longer the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor.
In response to the Department’s letter, the applicant provided the following documents on 7 December 2019:
·Statement by the applicant
·Centrelink Screenshots, showing that the sponsor had listed the applicant in her ‘relationship status’, and listing the [Address 1] address
·VicRoads letter and drivers licences listing the [Address 1] address
·Joint [Bank 1] Account statement for February to May 2019, listing the joint address at [Address 1]
·Applicant’s 2018/2019 Tax Return, listing the [Address 1] address and the sponsor as the applicant’s spouse
·Applicant’s University Qualifications and work contracts
·Statutory Declaration by [Ms C] dated 5 December 2019
·Statutory Declaration by [the sponsor] dated 5 December 2019
·Statutory Declaration by [Mr D] dated 30 November 2019
·Statutory Declaration by [Mr E] dated 30 November 2019
·Retail receipts in joint names at the [Address 1] address
·Assortment of photographs of the applicant and sponsor together with the sponsor’s children and socially
On 7 February 2020, the delegate of the Department made a decision to refuse to grant the applicant the visas on the basis that the evidence provided by the applicant was limited and unconvincing and did not demonstrate the claimed relationship between the applicant and sponsor. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was in a long term continued relationship with the sponsor, that they drew emotional support and companionship from each other, or that they had committed to a shared life together.
The delegate considered the applicant’s response to the Department’s natural justice letter but found that it did not address the Department’s concerns and that the information provided in parts contradicted the applicant’s claims. The delegate gave weight to the adverse information and considered that the most likely explanation was that the applicant was not in a genuine and continuing relationship with the sponsor.
The Tribunal Application
The applicant applied for review of the Department’s decision with the Tribunal on 24 February 2020. The applicant provided a copy of the Department’s decision record and notification letters with their application.
The applicant provided the following documents in support of their application:
·Applicant Statement
·Centrelink letter addressed to the sponsor dated 27 December 2017
·Joint [Bank 1] Account statement from July to December 2019
·Photographs of the applicant, sponsor and the sponsor’s children together
·Applicant Statement in response to Department’s Natural Justice letter
·Photographs of the engagement and wedding party in Vietnam in 2017
·Photographs of the applicant and sponsor together socially in Vietnam and Australia
·Photographs of the applicant’s visit to Australia with the sponsor and her family in July 2017
·Photographs of the applicant with the sponsor and her children during their trip in Vietnam in 2017
s.359(2) letter
On 24 February 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant under s.359(2) of the Act to invite the applicant to provide further information to support his claims that he and the sponsor are in a spouse or de facto relationship. The letter provided the applicant with 14 days to provide a response or request an extension of time to response. The letter stated that if the information was not received within the period allowed or as extended, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information, and that the applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments at a hearing.
On the same day, the Tribunal sent an invitation to the applicant to attend a hearing that had been scheduled for 30 March 2023.
On 27 February 2023, the Tribunal received a response from the applicant in which he stated that he had flown back to Vietnam and requesting that the hearing be postponed until after 11 April 2023 when he would return to Melbourne.
On the same day, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that the Member had accepted his request to postpone the hearing and sending an invitation to attend the rescheduled hearing on 14 April 2023. The letter stated that despite the change of hearing date, the Invitation to Provide Information was still due by 10 March 2023, and that if the Tribunal did not receive the information within the period allowed or as extended, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information, and that the applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.
No response was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant to its Invitation to Provide Information letter by 10 March 2023.
On 15 March 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to advise that as a result of the applicant failing to respond within the period allowed, the applicant had lost their entitlement to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments at a hearing, and that the hearing scheduled for 14 April 2023 had been cancelled. The letter stated that the Tribunal would proceed to make a decision based on the information currently before it but would consider any information or submissions received up until the time it makes its decision.
On the same day, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal indicating that he had returned to Vietnam due to an urgent family situation and that as per his previous email he would not be able to provide any information until his return to Australia. The applicant requested that the Tribunal postpone making a decision on his application until 12 April 2023 so that he could return to Australia to say goodbye to his family, pack his belongings, sell his car and deal with his superannuation.
Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship
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.
‘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?
If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The applicant provided a copy of their certified Marriage Certificate registered [in] December 2017. 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).
Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?
Financial aspects of the relationship
The applicant provided the following documents in support of the financial aspects of the relationship:
·Applicant Statement
·Joint [Bank 1] Account statement for the month of January 2018 and also from February to May and July to December 2019
·2018/2019 Individual tax return
·Centrelink Screen Shots
·Retail receipts
·A statement from the applicant
There does not appear to be evidence which supports ongoing salaries deposited into the joint bank accounts which could demonstrate the financial nature of the relationship.
The statement made pertaining to the applicant and sponsor’s respective employment and salary is not reflected in deposits into the joint account.
The applicant and sponsor have provided no evidence of joint assets or liabilities or details about their future financial plans and possible savings.
The applicant provided an explanation in a written submission to the Tribunal which in summary stated:
“that the case officer has decided that the [Bank 1] Statement covering the months of January to February 2018 that I submitted was inconsistent cash deposits with unidentifiable transfers or small inconsistent retail purchases. This was when we just opened the joint bank account and that I could not find any suitable jobs, that’s why the money was very limited which could not reflect the whole history of our financial situation or commitments. Therefore, it should be considered only as the start of our shared financial situation.
Until I started working for [Employer 1] at [Town 1] in July 2018, the money in and out of our bank account had become more consistent and it has reflected so much better and clearer the financial aspect of our life. Please have a look back at the second Bank Statement of May 2019 I provided, there was a consistence of money transfers and withdrawal of cash or spending. Therefore, I believe the case officer is too hasty to jump to a conclusion that we don’t pool our finance from the look of that short period of time of the first two months when we just opened the joint bank account.
Next, speaking of the Individual Tax Return of my taxable gross income of 41,558$ from employer [Employer 1], the case officer stated that our joint [Bank 1] statements does not record wages from this company. This is clearly a mistake from the case officer. Our bank account from July 2018 til August 2019 that I attached in response to the Natural justice letter had recorded very clearly and consistently the transfer of money from [Employer 1] to our account every Wednesday under the name “Transfer from [Bank 1] pay for...”. This is the transfer from [Employer 1] to my weekly wages. I cannot believe that the case officer has not looked closely enough to my Individual Tax Return and could not realize that the wages I had earned from [Employer 1] were transferred to our joint bank account. This could likely be explained that the case officer didn’t see from my bank statement from 20/02/2019 to 20/05/2019 the name of my former employer company which is [Employer 1]. They paid me under the name “transfer from [Bank 1] pay for...”. Once again, this is a huge mistake from the Department to doubt our shared financial aspect. I only have one joint bank account with my wife and every penny I’ve earned comes to this account. Even after I quit my job from [Employer 1] and started working for [Employer 2] in [Town 1] in August 2019, my weekly wages have come to the bank account every Thursday night started from 22nd August 2019. I would also attach the bank statement indicating the weekly payment as “Salary [Employments]” from my job at [Employer 2] since August 2019.
Also, in my response to Letter of Natural Justice from the Department, I have commented that I’ve been working several jobs such as [specified roles] to support my wife and the kids. The case officer noted that our joint bank account does not reflect income from these professions. This is true but could be explained as follow. When I came back to Australia and started working to support our married life. I had tried to apply for a [job] at a [business] and a [specified] job at [location]. However, switching from an [Occupation 1 career] in Vietnam to manual jobs like [specified roles] gave me lots of challenges. As a result, after 1 day trial from each job, I was rejected by the owners and did not get the jobs there. During that difficult time, my wife and my mother in law had been a great support to our financial situation. Until I got the job at [Employer 1], the situation had been improved greatly and it could be demonstrated by our consistent withdraws of money from the joint bank account to cover our domestic fees etc”.
Whilst the Tribunal notes the explanations from the applicant, there is no further updated evidence to demonstrate any updates to their financial situation since 2019 to now. There is no evidence of the job offers the applicant claims to have had which were short lived and no supporting documentation from family discussing and demonstrating their financial support of the co0uple.
Given the lack of any significant details to assist the Tribunal in understanding the nature of their financial affairs, the Tribunal finds that the applicant and sponsor do not pool their financial resources to the degree expected of a couple in a genuine relationship.
Nature of the household
The applicant provided the following documents in support of the nature of the household:
·Applicant Statement
·Centrelink letter addressed to the sponsor dated 27 December 2017
·Photographs of the applicant, sponsor and the sponsor’s children together
·Applicant Statement in response to Department’s Natural Justice letter
·A VicRoads letter and driver’s licence
·Retail receipts
·Statutory Declaration from [Ms B] signed 5 December 2019
Whilst the Tribunal notes that evidence has been provided that the applicant and sponsor list their address as the same, they have provided no further detail to support the nature of their living arrangements, details about their daily routines and shared household responsibilities.

The Tribunal notes that receipts have been provided which list the applicant and sponsor purchasing household items together, this alone does not demonstrate the nature of their household.
The applicant has stated that they live in a shared established household with his mother-in-law and therefore they did not require a lot of items. They stated that they have now started using these for their new living environment however there is no evidence of what this new household is.
Had the applicant or sponsor provided further information as requested by the Tribunal, it may have had a greater understanding about the nature of their household, but this was not provided.
The Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the nature of the claimed shared household expected of a couple in a genuine spousal relationship.
Social aspects of the relationship
The applicant provided the following documents in support of the social aspects of the relationship:
·Applicant Statement
·Photographs of the applicant, sponsor and the sponsor’s children together
·Photographs of the engagement and wedding party in Vietnam in 2017
·Photographs of the applicant and sponsor together socially in Vietnam and Australia
·Photographs of the applicant’s visit to Australia with the sponsor and her family in July 2017
·Photographs of the applicant with the sponsor and her children during their trip in Vietnam in 2017
·Form 888 Statutory Declaration endorsed by [Ms A] signed 23 January 2018.
·Form 888 Statutory Declaration endorsed by [Mr B] signed 25 January 2018.
·Statutory Declaration from [Ms C] signed 5 December 2019.
·Statutory Declaration from [the sponsor] signed 5 December 2019.
·Statutory Declaration from [Mr D] signed 30 November 2019.
·Statutory Declaration from [Mr E] signed 30 November 2019
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and sponsor have undertaken joint social activities together based on the photographs provided. The Tribunal notes that the applicant and sponsor have provided statutory declarations from third parties supporting the relationship, however the applicant and sponsor provided no further information to support these statements which were provided only up to 2019 and as they did not attend the hearing and did not provide any further evidence, The Tribunal places minimal weight on these as evidence of the social aspects of the relationship given the lack of evidence in other areas of their relationship and no supporting evidence to show the current development of the relationship as would be expected. The Tribunal has been unable to seek further clarification about how the relationship has developed or speak to the applicant or sponsor at hearing and when invited to provide further information they di9d not.
Whilst the applicant has argued that the five Statutory Declarations by third parties should be considered as credible evidence of the social aspects of their relationship, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provided updated information supporting their relationship and this was not provided. Had the applicant done so, the Tribunal may have been able to accept the development and ongoing nature of their relationship.
The applicant provided further explanation as to the wedding photos and stated that when his wife came back to Vietnam to have the engagement party they had a formal, traditional and cheerful party with families and friends and that there were about 60-70 guests that we invited to witness and celebrate their relationship and that his family decided to combine the engagement party to the wedding party because it may be some time before they could return to Vietnam. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and sponsor were married, and photographic evidence supports that they celebrated the event with family and friends. However, photographs in themselves are not sufficient to demonstrate the ongoing relationship or how the couple presented themselves.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant and sponsor have demonstrated sufficiently the social aspects of their relationship with updated documentary or oral evidence to support the development of their relationship and how they present as a couple.
Nature of persons’ commitment to each other
The applicant provided the following documents in support of the nature of persons’ commitment to each other:
·Applicant Statement
·Applicant Statement in response to Department’s Natural Justice letter
·Photographs of the engagement and wedding party in Vietnam in 2017
·Photographs of the applicant and sponsor together socially in Vietnam and Australia
·Photographs of the applicant’s visit to Australia with the sponsor and her family in July 2017
·Photographs of the applicant with the sponsor and her children during their trip in Vietnam in 2017
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and sponsor are married given the evidence detailed above. Further, the Tribunal accepts that friends and family attended the marriage ceremony. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate their future plans and how they support each other on a daily basis.
The Tribunal has also considered the adverse information contained in the delegate’s decision provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. Had the applicant and sponsor responded to the request for further information about their relationship or attended the hearing, the Tribunal may have been in a position to understand why Centrelink records indicate the sponsor was in a de facto relationship with her ex partner and residing with him at a joint address in Doreen.
Whilst the Tribunal notes the applicant’s response to the Department that once he married the sponsor ceased receiving payments and that as the payments had stopped, there was no need to update her change in circumstances. It is a requirement of Centrelink to update them with any change of circumstance and this omission concerns the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has been unable to ascertain why the provided screen shots of the sponsor’s Centrelink profile displays payments in 2018 and 2019 which is different to the original claim that the sponsor ceased benefits when you were marriage. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant stated that on notification by the Department of this discrepancy, the sponsor updated her records to ‘married’ and provided the correct residential address, this delay in updating Centrelink detracts from the credibility of the evidence provided.
The applicant in a submission to the Tribunal stated that his wife was a customer with Centrelink and received the subsidy from Parenting Payment (Partner) when she was still together with her ex partner.
His submission states that “the payment has stopped since late 2017 when she decided to get married with me and until lately she has received no subsidy from Centrelink except some Child Care Benefits/ Child Care Rebate for [name]-our little daughter of her previous relationship.
As she has stopped receiving any Subsidy from Centrelink, she did not think that updating her changed circumstances is necessary. That resulted in my name as her current partner was not recorded from Centrelink.
The money went to the bank account that my wife had before, therefore, wasn’t shown in our joint bank account. Last time when the Department sent me the Natural Justice Letter to comment on this issue, my wife still insisted that she stopped being subsided by the Centerlink which was partly true. However, she didn’t tell me that she still had that money from the Centerlink. She hid it from me because she was afraid that I would get angry with her for receiving the money beyond my knowledge and affected my visa application. That why I replied to the Department that my wife was rightfully entitled to the money as Child Care Benefit/ Child Care rebate and I thought that $3,379.39 received in 2018 was the money she could rightfully have from the former relationship. Now that Centerlink has been updated with my details as her current partner, therefore they have asked my wife to return the money that she has mistakenly taken and we have agreed to do so. After the mistake we have made due to my wife’s forgetfulness and ignorance, on behalf on my wife, I would like to apologize for this. We understand that this miscommunication and misunderstanding between us, Centerlink and Immigration Department has partly affected and left a negative mark on my visa application. However, we hope that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would not consider this as a point to question the nature of our genuine spousal relationship but only a one off mistake made by communication breakdown and personal ignorance”.
The Tribunal notes the explanation pertaining to Centrelink but also considers that the sponsor’s inability to be upfront with the applicant does not support his claims that they are committed to each other. Whilst this in itself is not the only concern held by the Tribunal, the applicant and sponsor have not demonstrated in any further detail their commitment to one another. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant and sponsor have sufficiently demonstrated their commitment to one another to the degree expected of a couple in a genuine spousal relationship. The Tribunal finds that the applicant and sponsor are not in a long term committed relationship whereby the draw emotional support and companionship from one another or that they have committed to a shared life together.
Any other circumstances of the relationship
The applicant provided a statement to address concerns regarding the alleged contrived relationship and stated that his first marriage ended in a genuine manner and had he wanted to remain in Australia at the time he was married to her he had other opportunities to remain and that he met his second wife, the sponsor in a genuine manner through an introduction by his landlady. He stated he returned to Vietnam and the sponsor came to visit him and the relationship developed organically.
In considering the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that there is no recent updated evidence to support the development of the relationship to support their claim that there is a mutual commitment to shared life to the exclusion of others and that the relationship is genuine and continuing and they live together and not separately and apart on a permanent basis. The applicant has been awarded every opportunity to provided updated information and attend a hearing which he did not.
On the basis of the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) are met at the time the visa application was made and the time of this decision.
Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl 820.211(2)(a)] and cl 820.221.
The applicant has not provided evidence to suggest that the have a child to the relationship or that family violence was prevalent in the relationship and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the sponsor has died.
For the reasons above, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.
Rachel Westaway
Senior 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).

[2024] AATA 327

31 January 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice