Burrowes (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3478

Burrowes (Migration) [2019] AATA 3478 (12 March 2019)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

CORRIGENDUM

DIVISION:

REVIEW APPLICANT: VISA APPLICANT:
CASE NUMBER:                  
DIBP REFERENCE(S): MEMBER:

DATE OF DECISION:

DATE CORRIGENDUM SIGNED:

PLACE OF DECISION: AMENDMENT:

Migration & Refugee Division

Mr Wayne David Burrowes
Ms Thi Kim Thao Mai

1701017

0SF2016/038222

Denis Dragovic
12 March 2019

19 March 2019

Melbourne

The following corrections are made to the decision:

1.    The date 1 May 2015 should be replaced with 1 May 2018 on point 46 of the Decision Record.

Denis Dragovic
Senior Member

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

SPONSOR:Mr Wayne David Burrowes

VISA APPLICANT:  Ms Thi Kim Thao Mai

CASE NUMBER:  1701017

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OSF2016/038222

MEMBER:Denis Dragovic

DATE:12 March 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

·cl.309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 12 March 2019 at 6:24pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – genuine and continuing relationship – early relationship challenged by cultural differences and life circumstances – challenges from health, bereavement and employment – sustained emotional support – family and social support – decision under review remitted     

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 309.211, 309.221; rr 1.15

CASES

He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206

statement of decision and reasons

application for review

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 14 November 2016 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 1 April 2016 on the basis of her relationship with her sponsor, the sponsor. At that time, Class UF contained only one subclass: Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). 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.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.309.211(2) and cl.309.221 because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor see their relationship as a long-term one. The delegate noted that the parties did not meet each other for seven years since their engagement in 2008. The delegate was also concerned by the absence of a traditional wedding ceremony and that they did not present themselves to families, relatives and friends as a couple.

4. The sponsor appeared before the Tribunal on 7 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal did not receive oral evidence from the applicant for reasons that will be described below.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant was at the time of application and is at the time of decisions for the purposes of the Act the spouse of the sponsor.

   Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship

7. Clause 309.211(2) and 309.221 require that at the time the visa application was made, and at the time of this decision, the visa applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. In the present case the visa applicant claims to be the spouse of the sponsor who is an Australian citizen.

8. ‘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 visa applicant’s and sponsor’s household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in r.1.15A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered: He v MIBP[2017] FCAFC 206.

   Are the parties validly married?

9. If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The applicants married on the 31 March 2016. A marriage certificate was provided. 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?

   Background:

10. The sponsor was first introduced to his wife through a car park attendant whom he got to know well and befriended. The car park attendant showed a picture of his wife, the applicant asked if she had a sister, the attendant responded that she does. This passing comment led to the car park attendant inviting the applicant to his home and befriending his family. Then introductions to the visa applicant were made via social media and through phone calls. The sponsor and visa applicant apparently ‘hit it off’ and the former then travelled to Vietnam to see the visa applicant. His first visit in September 2008 lasted for about 3 weeks as he was limited by the amount of time he could take off. During this visit they decided to get engaged having a dinner attended by family and friends. 

11. The review applicant visited the visa applicant once more in December 2008 for about 3 weeks. Subsequently, the visa applicant visited the sponsor in Australia in February 2009 but things didn’t work out because he couldn’t take time off to spend with her along with what he described as cultural issues such as if he talked to another woman she would become upset and because her father had a fall needing her to return immediately. As a result the visa applicant only remained in Australia for two weeks. During this period the sponsor attempted to arrange to introduce her to his eldest son but due to other pressures it couldn’t occur before she left Australia.

12. Each time that the sponsor visited his wife in Vietnam he engaged with her family as he stayed at the house where they lived. The sponsor provided a copy of the Vietnamese government registration document which includes an address where the foreigner is registered to stay. The address aligned with the address of the visa applicant as contained in her file.

13. For reasons discussed further below after the visa applicant left Australia in February 2009 they didn’t stay in touch. He got back in touch with her in about 2015. The sponsor described the circumstances of the reconnection as fortuitous and a message from God. He lost his phone and realized that he didn’t have her details stored anywhere else. After he was able to get his data back he resumed contact. In 2015 they decided to recommit to their relationship. The review applicant travelled to Vietnam in 23 March 2016. They were officially married but waited for the traditional wedding ceremony during a return visit in December 2016.

14. I found the applicant to be a credible witness and as such have accepted his evidence as fact unless otherwise stated.

    Financial aspects of the relationship

15. The applicants have no joint assets or liabilities.

16. Extent of pooling of financial resources: The sponsor claims to have made money gifts to the visa applicant in 2009 and 2016 and that every time he visited Vietnam he insisted that she accept 5,000,000 d. He claimed to have shared costs on the engagement and wedding (AAT f.33 &36). The sponsor claims that the visa applicant’s parents made a financial contribution to their engagement and wedding ceremonies, including paying for the restaurant meal (AAT ff.36; 34).

17. Any legal obligations owed to the other party: The sponsor claimed in his written submission to the Tribunal from January 2017 to have named the visa applicant as his spouse and beneficiary entitled to 50% of his assets through his will and in his superannuation (his four sons will receive the remaining 50%) (AAT f.33). At the hearing I asked about this but he couldn’t remember. He said that he didn’t have a will but that it’s possible that he changed the superannuation. He explained that he couldn’t remember because his son had died in April 2018 and he had been mentally struggling. The sponsor provided evidence of his son’s death from the Victorian Coroner.

18. Any sharing of day-to-day household expenses: The sponsor claimed that he and the visa applicant shared living expenses during his trips to Vietnam, although he was treated as family and not allowed to pay for things like rent and food (AAT f.36). He claims that he supported the visa applicant financially during her trip to Australia in 2009 (AAT f.36). It is also claimed that while in Australia the visa applicant sometimes paid for groceries and contributed to household expenses such as electricity (AAT f.33). The sponsor claims that he and the visa applicant shared the costs related to their engagement and wedding ceremonies, including the reception, hiring suits and gowns, the photographer and wedding rings (AAT f.36; 34). In support of this claim the applicants have provided:

    ·A receipt dated 27 December 2016, naming the applicants, for a wedding dress, a suit, flowers and a traditional bridal garment (AAT f.104A).

    ·A contract dated 23 December 2016 between the applicants and Honey Moon Restaurant for an 8 table wedding banquet and the payment bill (AAT ff.99; 98; 103.

    ·A receipt dated 26 December 2016, naming the applicants, for two rings (AAT f.91)

    ·A receipt 30 December 2016, naming the applicants, for a vehicle hire (AAT f.94)

19. I find that overall the financial aspects of the relationship are weak. Considering that the visa applicant and sponsor live in two separate countries I give little weight to the lack of shared financial aspects to their relationship.

    Nature of the household

20. Any joint responsibility for care and support of children: The sponsor claims that while in Vietnam, so as to provide the visa applicant with some relief from her responsibilities, he escorted the visa applicant’s elderly father on walks and her niece, who has learning difficulties, to the park to play games (AAT f.36).

21. Living arrangements: The applicants intend to live together in Australia. Currently the visa applicant is living in Vietnam and the sponsor in Australia.

22. Sharing of housework: While in Vietnam the sponsor assisted the visa applicant in her family shop (both the pharmacy and the photocopy shop), doing stocktake, general duties and assisting tourists who did not speak the local language. He also claims to have assisted the visa applicant in teaching her English classes (AAT f.36; 35). The sponsor claims to have assisted the visa applicant with cooking, washing up, going to the market, laundry and doing physical tasks that the visa applicant could not (AAT f.36). While in Australia the visa applicant managed the household because the sponsor was working full-time. The applicants shopped and gardened together on the weekends (AAT f.33).

23. I find that overall the financial aspects of the relationship are weak. Considering that the visa applicant and sponsor live in two separate countries I give little weight to the lack of shared financial aspects to their relationship.

    Social aspects of the relationship

24. Whether parties represent themselves to other people as being married to each other: The applicants claim to have held an engagement party on 26 September 2008 with family and friends at the Rang Dong restaurant in Ho Chi Minh City (AAT f.37). In support of this claim the Tribunal received a photo of the applicants with guests at the party (AAT f.247). The applicants married on 31 March 2016. Due to time constraints caused by the Vietnamese bureaucracy and the sponsor’s work commitments in Australia, the applicants put their wedding festivities on hold. The wedding was further delayed because in June 2016 the visa applicant’s father was hospitalised after falling down the stairs (AAT f.35).

25. Photos provided depict the applicants together planning their wedding at the Honey Moon restaurant and delivering wedding invitations to their guests (AAT ff. 114-111; 117). The applicants held their wedding ceremony on 31 December 2016. The sponsor claimed that 50 family members and 30 friends and neighbours were invited to their wedding (AAT f.34). In support the applicants provided the Tribunal with copies of their wedding invitation (AAT f.106), their wedding book signed by their guests (AAT f.89), and photos depicting their wedding ceremony, reception and performance of the ritual worship at their family altar (AAT ff.82-48). Also received was a wedding contract indicating that 8 tables were catered for at the reception (AAT f.103).

26. The applicants provided statements by the visa applicant’s sister and brother-in-law, a friend, and the sponsor’s son, all confirming that the applicants present themselves as spouses (AAT ff. 25&30; Dept f.66&67).

27. It is claimed that the applicants plan to have a wedding ceremony in Melbourne with the sponsor’s sons in the future (AAT f.33). It is claimed that the visa applicant’s husband, the sponsor, is now included in discussions concerning the family business (AAT f.33) This was explained at the hearing as involving the redevelopment of some land that the visa applicant’s mum has in the Vietnamese country side. He suggested to them that he’d draw up a plan for the property.

28. The sponsor claims that his sons are supportive of their marriage and are keen to meet the visa applicant (AAT f.32). The sponsor explained that the children were not in attendance at the hearing because of the death of their brother and having thrown their lives into tumult.

29. The sponsor claims that his colleagues are aware of his marriage and have extended social invitations to the applicants (AAT f.31).

30. The opinion of friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship: The sponsor’s son, David Charles Burrowes, provided a statutory declaration dated 16 January 2017 stating that since about 2009 he has heard a lot about the visa applicant from his father, he says that since he has been aware of their relationship he has maintained regular contact with the applicants, including sometimes receiving birthday cards from the visa applicant. He declares that he undoubtedly believes the relationship to be genuine and the applicants want to share their lives together (AAT ff.30-29).

31. Ngoc Liem Huynh, an Australian Vietnamese citizen who the visa applicant met via her younger brother, provided a statutory declaration dated 18 January 2017 stating that he had known the visa applicant for 2 years and the sponsor for 1 year. He declares that he socialised with the applicants in Vietnam and he travelled to Vietnam for the applicants’ wedding and celebrated their love with family and friends. He senses from his conversations with the applicants that they have strong feelings for each other and want a future together. He has no doubt the relationship is genuine (AAT f.25).

32. The sponsor claimed that in 2008 he met the visa applicant’s 96 year old grandmother, and in a gesture meaning a great deal, she blessed their relationship (AAT f.37). A photo has been provided (AAT f. 256)

33. Any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities: The applicants have provided photos of themselves at the airport and socialising with others over meals and at the family shop (AAT ff.127-116). The Tribunal received photos depicting the applicants celebrating after their wedding at a local bar in Vietnam (AAT f.45). Photos of the applicants celebrating the sponsor’s birthday with family and friends in Vietnam on 4 October 2008 have been provided (AAT f.246; 243; 241; 240)

34. The applicants organised a beach day with their family and friends following their wedding ceremony (AAT f.32). In support the Tribunal received a receipt, naming both applicants, for the hire of a 16 seat vehicle, and photos of their guests at the beach (AAT ff. 94; 43-40)

35. Previously the applicants have largely spent time together while working in the visa applicant’s family shop and had little time to socialise with friends, however on non-work days they would visit tourist attractions or spend time with the visa applicant’s friends at the park. Various photos in support of these claims have been provided, including the applicants next to a motorbike in 2008 (AAT f.242) and at the Ho Chi Minh City Christmas celebrations in 2016 (AAT f.115). The applicants also visited the visa applicant’s grandmother together and celebrated her health (AAT f.32). Photos have been provided from a beach trip the applicants made with family and friends in 2016 (AAT ff.249-248).

36. The applicants were invited, as couple, to a tennis tournament by their friend Tuan with a group of colleagues and family friends (AAT f.32). The visa applicant did not play, but carried water and took photos. In support of this claim the applicants provided photos of the tournament to the Tribunal (AAT ff.255-250).

37. It is claimed that in Australia the applicants socialised with the visa applicant’s sister, brother-in-law and aunty at their homes and at restaurants and at her relative’s friend’s homes. No photos were taken of these occasions (AAT f.32).

38. It is claimed that the visa applicant delayed meeting the sponsor’s sons to improve her English and a family long weekend meeting was planned in March 2009, but was cancelled when the visa applicant had to return to Vietnam to care for her father and the family business (AAT f.32).

39. I find that overall the social aspects of the applicants’ relationship is strong considering the circumstances of living apart in two different countries. When they have been together opportunities were taken to introduce or attempt to introduce each other to family members and friends. In addition a public engagement was held along with a public wedding. The applicants have also worked together in the visa applicant’s shop. I give this aspect considerable weight.

    Nature of persons' commitment to each other

40. Duration of the relationship: Since the early months of their relationship in 2008 and 2009 the sponsor said that he and the visa applicant experienced a serious rift created by a combination of misunderstandings and his personal and work difficulties, however they never broke their engagement. He explains that while the visa applicant continued to communicate with him, he struggled with the difficult circumstances and was unable to express his feelings (AAT f.35). He stated that he could not make any promises to the visa applicant at this time and he phoned her less often because he wanted to wait until he had a decent job and could show that he could be a responsible husband. In support of his claims regarding his employment the sponsor had provided emails and job advertisements from 2013 regarding his job hunt (AAT ff.205-192). The sponsor then moved to Brisbane for a new job in October 2010 (Dept f.91). The sponsor experienced employment and mental health difficulties from 2012 to 2014, his circumstances began to improve after February 2015 when he secured a new job in Sydney, and then in December 2015 he contacted the visa applicant and they recommitted to their relationship (Dept f.51; AAT f.35). In support of these claims the applicants have provided a series of text messages dating from 18 December 2015 to 13 January 2016 in which they express their love, affection and concern for each other, the sponsor apologises for his behaviour and asks for forgiveness. He expresses how important the visa applicant’s messages of support have been to him and that he wants to start talking again. The sponsor and visa applicant discuss their communication, health and wellbeing, daily activities, their future, marriage, plane tickets, sex and visa application (AAT ff. 231-207).

1. The applicants provided the following evidence concerning their recent communications:

   a)Screenshot of the sponsor’s email sent box displaying 3 emails to the visa applicant in November 2016, 3 emails in December 2016 and 8 emails in January 2017 (AAT.f.235)

   b)57 emails from the visa applicant to the sponsor between June 2016 and January 2017, discussing birthdays (including the sponsor’s son David) and the partner visa application, among other things (AAT.234-233)

   c)Communication dated 12 September 2016 and 15 September 2016 , includes discussion of friend’s death and travel baggage allowances and clothing purchases (AAT f.206)

   d)Phone records from January 2016 to January 2017 highlighting multiple international phone calls each month to phone numbers in Vietnam (AAT ff.189-136).

2. The length of time they have lived together: The sponsor and visa applicant have had limited time together, in total the sponsor has made at least seven trips to Vietnam and the applicant one trip to Australia.

3. Degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other: It is claimed that the applicants have nicknames for each other. The sponsor is Wenni and the visa applicant is Katee (Dept f.54). The sponsor claims that when his mother passed away in April 2008 the visa applicant was very supportive of him emotionally while he grieved the loss of his mother. The visa applicant prays for his mother in church (Dept f.89). The sponsor claimed that the visa applicant supported him through his work difficulties and depression (AAT f.36). During this period the visa applicant never gave up sending him messages of positivity and encouragement. He loved her for this (AAT f.35). In support of this claim the applicants have provided a series of text messages sent on 5 October 2014, 7 October 2014, 31 December 2014, 1 January 2015 in which the visa applicant wishes the sponsor and his sons a happy new year and sends the sponsor birthday wishes and luck for finding work (AAT f.232).

4. The sponsor describes their connection as strong, loving and caring and he claims they make contact regularly (AAT f.37).

5. The sponsor claimed that he has provided support to the visa applicant by discussing the emotional, physical and financial strains she experiences from managing her family business (AAT f.36). He provided support to the visa applicant when her father became seriously ill in 2009 and in 2016 when he nearly died after falling down the stairs (AAT f.36). The sponsor claimed that the visa applicant’s grandmother passed away and even though they were separated at the time, the she contacted him and he offered his condolences to her and her family (AAT f.36). The sponsor claims that he and the visa applicant acknowledge and understand each other’s challenges, for example the visa applicant needing to support her family in Vietnam and the emotional strain of the visa applicant leaving her family. They have plans to manage the effects of the visa applicant’s separation from her family together (Dept f.89).

6. On 1 May 2015 the sponsor called the Tribunal quite upset and distressed because his son had died and he wanted the visa applicant to be in Australia to support him (AAT f.275 – see also f.279 re sponsor’s mental state).

7. The sponsor claims that another aspect of the emotional support that he and the visa applicant provide to each other is guiding each other about their cultural differences.

8. It is claimed that the visa applicant taught the sponsor to pray each morning and together they light and burn incense, bow three times to worship their grandparents (AAT f.34). Prior to their wedding the visa applicants helped the applicant’s mother to clean, tidy and prepare their grandparents altar (AAT f.34). The applicants provided photos in support of this claim (AAT ff.110-107).

9. Whether they see the relationship as long-term: The visa applicant closed her family’s pharmacy shop, which relied heavily on her expertise, and opened a photocopy shop instead so that her family could operate the business without her and she can be with the sponsor in Australia (AAT f.35). In support of this claim the applicants provided photos of the shop’s new signage (AAT ff.238-237).

10. The sponsor claims that their relationship has withstood many difficulties and their partnership has become more stable (f.34). It is claimed that the applicants’ long term plans include buying a house outside Sydney, and along with the furniture and other goods, it will be a joint asset. It is intended that the visa applicant will find work in a pharmacy or printing business, and the sponsor plans to take Vietnamese classes and the visa applicant will attend English classes. Other ideas for the future include starting a family business that would include the sponsor’s sons and establishing a shop to fund their retirement (AAT f.33).

11. I find that overall the nature of the commitment in their relationship is strong with the sharing of emotional support, personal beliefs and hopes and aspirations. The review applicant was taught to pray, they have made plans for the future and rely upon each other during difficult times. I give this aspect considerable weight.

    Conclusion

12. The applicants have had a long and somewhat torturous relationship history challenged by cultural differences, distance and life’s circumstances. The visa applicant left Australia after only a brief visit for these reasons. The relationship ceased to be active for a lengthy period while the review applicant faced mental health challenges and unemployment. The relationship nevertheless rekindled in 2015 and was reinvigorated in 2016 with the marriage and a traditional ceremony. When they had the opportunity to be together they spent time both with family and friends including holding an engagement party and a wedding ceremony. Sadly, the review applicant lost his son in 2018. It is clear from the correspondence and attitude of the review applicant at the hearing that in such a time of crisis he has turned to the visa applicant for emotional support. In many ways the pathway that this relationship took is to be expected of people who have their own lives and obligations, him to his remaining three children and her to her elderly parents and business. They recognize this and while having made some plans to mitigate the challenges I suspect those plans will amount to nought until they are able to overcome the challenge of not being able to plan to live in the same place. I am convinced that the relationship is a genuine relationship because of how it has persevered despite the challenges.

13. As such the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of application and the time of decision, the review applicant and the visa applicant had and have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others, as required by s.5F(2)(b) of the Act; had and have a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by s.5F(2)(c) of the Act; and did and do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis, as required by s.5F(2)(d)(ii) of the Act.

14. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s.5F(2) are met at the time the visa application was made and the time of this decision.

15. Therefore the visa applicant meets cl.309.211 and cl.309.221.

16. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.

    decision

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

    ·cl.309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    ·cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    Denis Dragovic
    Senior Member

    
    

    Attachment  - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

    1.15ASpouse

    (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).