Chen (Migration)

[2019] AATA 4190

Chen (Migration) [2019] AATA 4190 (2 September 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Han Cheng Chen

VISA APPLICANT:  Miss Chuk Lan Tse

CASE NUMBER:  1700360

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/1884724

MEMBER:Helena Claringbold

DATE:2 September 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 02 September 2019 at 8:03am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) – not genuine spousal partners – no evidence of joint ownership of assets or liabilities – inconsistent information about financial resources, employment and living arrangements – credibility issues – fabricated claims – applicant previously excluded for three years for overstaying student visa – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15A, Schedule 2, cls 309.211(2), 309.221

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. On 30 June 2015, Miss Chuk Lan Tse (the visa applicant) applied for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. The application was based on her spousal relationship with Mr Han Cheng Chen, the sponsor and review applicant.

2. On 4 November 2016, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the visa applicant and the sponsor are genuine spousal partners. Therefore, the visa applicant did not meet subclause 309.211(2) and 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) made under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). On 9 January 2017, the sponsor provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision record. This is a review of the delegate’s decision.

3. On 16 August 2018, the sponsor applicant appeared before the Tribunal, differently constituted, (the first Tribunal hearing, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant and a witness. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Cantonese and English languages.

4. On 17 June 2019, the sponsor appeared before the Tribunal, (the Tribunal), to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant and Ms Chung Ping Siu. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Cantonese and English languages.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The Tribunal has taken into consideration, individually and as a whole, all the evidence in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s (the Department’s) case file and the Tribunal’s case file and the evidence at the Tribunal hearings.

   ISSUE

7. The issue in the present case is whether the visa applicant is the spouse of the sponsor as defined in s.5F of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   BACKGROUND ON THE EVIDENCE

8. The visa applicant was born in 1969 in Hainan, China. Her father is deceased. Her mother, sister and three brothers live in China. On 11 July 1992, she married Mr Tung Ming Yuen. There are two children from this relationship born in 1993 and 1994, who live in China. In September 2007, the visa applicant and Mr Yuen separated. On 19 January 2013, Mr Yuen and the applicant divorced.

9. In June 2011, the visa applicant first entered Australia on a tourist visa, which ceased on 29 June 2011. She was subsequently granted a student visa, which ceased on 3 March 2012. On 2 March 2012, the visa applicant was refused the grant of a student visa. The visa applicant claimed that she was not aware of the refusal of her second student visa application, and as a result, she had unknowingly remained unlawfully in Australia. On 15 June 2012, the visa applicant departed Australia and she was subject to an exclusion period of three years as a result of her overstaying her student visa.

10. The sponsor was born in 1955 in Canton, China. His parents are deceased and his sister lives in China. In June 2009, the sponsor had his name legally changed from Mr Hon Sing William to Mr Han Cheng Chen. In June 1981, the sponsor first entered Australia on a visitor visa, which ceased in September 1981. He is an Australian citizenship.

11. On 18 February 1993, the sponsor married Ms Elaine Luu. On 18 June 1998, Mrs Luu and the sponsor divorced. There are no children from this relationship. On 5 December 2000, the sponsor married Ms Fang Liu. In 2002, Ms Liu lodged an application for a partner visa sponsored by the sponsor. The visa application was not successful. On 17 June 2013, Ms Liu and the sponsor divorced. There are no children from this relationship.

12. In September 2011, the parties met in Sydney, NSW. On 8 June 2012, the parties became engaged. On 15 June 2012, the visa applicant departed Australia. In August 2015, following the lifting of her three year ban, the visa applicant was granted a tourist visa.  In January 2014, the parties married in Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.

    Is the visa applicant the spouse of an eligible citizen?

13. The Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor, at the time of visa application and at the time of this decision, was an Australian citizen.

    Are the parties validly married?

14. At the time the visa application was made, the visa applicant provided evidence of his marriage to the sponsor. 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 parties in a spousal relationship?

15. ‘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).

    CLAIMS AND FINDINGS

    Are the other requirements for a spousal relationship met?

16. 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.

17. Regarding the financial aspects of the parties relationship, there is no evidence that the parties have any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; or other than their joint bank account, have any joint liabilities; or other than as detailed about the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) report as set out below, have any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments; and other than their joint bank account that that they have any legal obligation in respect of the each other. The parties opened a joint bank account in February 2012. Joint bank statements from February to May 2012 record various unidentifiable debits and credits.  Bank statements recording debits directed to the visa applicant are as follows: from November 2012 to 2019. The sponsor told the Tribunal that he supported the visa applicant financially prior to their marriage. The parties provided inconsistent information about their financial matters and this is discussed below.

18. The Tribunal put information to the sponsor under s.359AA of the Act as follows:

    ·As detailed in the Department case file, an Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) report recorded that a total of over $A123,000 was transferred from the parties’ between June 2012 to February 2016 with beneficiaries including Legend Winner Ltd Company, Hong Kong World Biotech and the visa applicant.

19. The sponsor responded at the Tribunal hearing and stated the following: he attended the Tribunal hearing with the specific intention of ‘clearing his name’.  This money did not come from the parties’ joint bank account. Someone had stolen his details. He provided the Tribunal with bank statements from June 2012 to February 2016. The visa applicant also responded to this matter and stated that these transactions did not take place.

20. The Tribunal told the sponsor that the bank statements he claimed to have provided were not before the Tribunal. It provided the sponsor with additional time to provide the relevant information. The sponsor then asked the Tribunal if the bank statements are not available, would a letter from the bank manager suffice. The Tribunal told the sponsor that it would not.  The Tribunal could not see how a bank manager would be able to clarify this matter without the relevant bank statements. Previously, the sponsor stated that the visa applicant was outside Australia from August 2012 to August 2015. However the delegate’s decision record provides information that while the visa applicant was in Australia between June 2012 and February 2016 amounts remitted to Hong Kong and China by the parties were between A$8,000 and A$9,000 and totalled approximately A$100,000. In a post hearing submission the sponsor responded and stated that the AUSTRAC information is impossible and irrational and he has provided bank statements to support the parties clean and clear financial background.

21. The sponsor has not provided the Tribunal with any information to support his claim that someone stole his details or that he has reported the matter to the relevant authorities or made any official investigation into either his claimed stolen details or the AUSTRAC report. The sponsor provided the Tribunal with bank statements for a joint bank account in the parties’ names. While the statements record various transaction credited to the visa applicant, they do not record the transactions recorded in the AUSTRAC report attributed to Legend Winner Ltd Company and Hong Kong World Biotech.  However the AUSTRAC report clearly recorded the transactions to these entities with the ordering customer recorded as ‘CHEN H C TSE CL’ and with the parties claimed Mallacoota residential address. This Tribunal led the Tribunal to be concerned that the parties have not provided the Tribunal with relevant bank statements relating to these transactions and led it to be concerned about their credibility.

22. AUSTRAC is an Australian government financial intelligence agency set up to monitor financial transactions to identify money laundering, organised crime, tax evasion, welfare fraud and terrorism. (>

    The Tribunal accepts the following: the parties have a joint bank account and bank statements record numerous transfers to other bank accounts and multiple debits against the visa applicant’s name. Although the parties deny that the transactions recorded in the AUSTRAC to the named entities took place, the Tribunal does not think that it is plausible for AUSTRAC to record that the parties made these transactions without them doing so. The Tribunal accepts the AUSTRAC report and that the parties appear to pool financial matters.

23. The Tribunal does not accept the parties’ claim that the money sent from the parties’ joint bank account and sent from the sponsor is to support the visa applicant financially because there is no supportive independent information about the expenditure of the monies. However, the parties did not appear to understand their financial matters.  The information provided about the parties financial matters does not give any insight into how the parties share their day-to-day household expenses. As a result the Tribunal does not accept that the parties share day-to-day household expenses.

24. Regarding the nature of the parties’ household, there is no information before the Tribunal that the parties have any joint responsibility for the care and support of children. The parties provided inconsistent information about the visa applicant’s son living with them and this is discussed below. The sponsor lives in Australia and the visa applicant lives in Hong Kong. The parties claim to have lived at addresses together in Australia.  On 8 June 2012, the parties became engaged and had a celebration of their engagement with their family and friends. On 15 June 2012, the visa applicant departed Australia. Since her departure the visa applicant has entered Australia as the holder of tourist visas. The parties’ provided inconsistent information about where they lived together between 2015 and 2016.  The sponsor claimed that the parties lived together at a Leylands Parade, Belmore address (the Belmore Address) while the visa applicant claimed that they lived together in Mallacoota, Victoria (the Mallacoota address) They also claim that since April 2016 they have lived at a Cambridge Street, Penshurst NSW (the Penshurst address). The parties provided one page of a joint residential tenancy agreement for this address starting on 24 April 2016 and ending on 24 October 2016. The document is unsigned and unwitnessed. In a post Tribunal hearing submission, the sponsor provided a lease for a Brownsville Ave, Brownsville address (the Brownsville address).  The lease started on 1 May 2013 and ended on 29 October 2013.  The tenants on the lease are listed as the sponsor and two other persons. The lease is unsigned by the landlord. The sponsor provided another lease for a Prince Edward Drive, Dapto address (the Dapto address).  The lease started on 5 December 2013 and ended on 4 June 2014. The sponsor is listed as the tenant on the lease. He also provided a statutory declaration claiming to be from the landlord of the Penshurst address who stated that has known the parties since April 2016 when they rented his house. The lease began with a half year contract but he said they could remain until they wanted to move. He ‘almost’ met them fortnightly when he collected the rent.

25. The parties claim that the sponsor visited the visa applicant in Hong Kong. In his statement of November 2015 the sponsor stated that in August 2015, the sponsor travelled to Hong Kong and the parties travelled to Thailand and Taiwan for ten days.  During this time the visa applicant was granted a visitor visa and entered Australia with the sponsor. When the sponsor works the visa applicant does the housework and the grocery shopping. The parties provided inconsistent information about their household and this is discussed below.

26. The Tribunal put information to the sponsor under s.359AA of the Act as follows:

    ·The sponsor gave evidence at the first Tribunal hearing, that the visa applicant came to Australia with a customer/friend who brought sex workers to Australia and she stayed in the hotel of this male person in Australia.

27. The sponsor responded and stated that the customer/friend worked in the same place as the visa applicant.  She was thinking of convenience and it is better to travel with a friend. She asked him to fill in the form (passenger arrival card).  It does not mean that they are in a relationship in anyway. She didn’t have an address and he said that she could use his address. He asked her to teach (staff) about skin care.  She lived at his address and then moved. The visa applicant told the Tribunal that she didn’t know what the customer/friend was writing down (on the passenger arrival card) and it just happened that the customer/friend was on the plane and she did not travel with him.

28. As detailed in the delegate’s decision record the visa applicant first entered Australia on a tourist visa in June 2011. At both interviews with the Consulate the visa applicant stated that she had travelled to Australia alone. When she was shown a transcript of an interview of the interview held on her arrival in Australia, where she was in the company of an Australian citizen who is known to be the owner of a brothel in Sydney.  The visa applicant stated that it was a co-incidence that she had been on the same plane as the Australian citizen and she didn’t know him.  It was put to her that the Australian citizen had stated at interview that he had known the visa applicant for six months in Hong Kong before travelling with her to Australia. The visa applicant stated that she had met him while working at a sauna and he had mentioned that he was travelling to Australia so she suggested that they travel together.

29. The Tribunal does not find the visa applicant to be credible. As recorded in the delegate’s decision record she provided information to the Consulate that she travelled alone and it was a coincidence that she was on the same plane as the customer/friend and she didn’t know him. Yet when confronted with the information in a previous interview she stated that she suggested that she and the customer/friend travel together. The sponsor told the Tribunal that the visa applicant knew the customer/friend from work and travelling with him was a matter of convenience and that she had stayed with him for a time.

30. The Tribunal put information to the sponsor under s.359AA of the Act as follows:

    ·In September 2016, during a Departmental interview, the visa applicant stated that the parties lived in Mallacoota, Victoria between August 2015 and June 2016. This information was put to the sponsor as it is inconsistent with the information he gave that the parties’ lived in Melbourne between 2014 and 2016 and he provided an address of Leylands Parade, Belmore NSW address. 

31. The sponsor responded at the Tribunal hearing and stated that when the visa applicant arrived he didn’t know how long he was going to work in Mallacoota so for convenience he gave his cousins address.

32. The Tribunal is perplexed the visa applicant claimed to live in Mallacoota between August 2015 and June 2016.  Yet other evidence is that the parties lived at the Penshurst address from April 2016.

33. The Tribunal put information to the sponsor under s.359AA of the Act as follows:

    ·The visa applicant told the Tribunal the following: the parties’ lived together in a one accommodation with one bedroom at the Mallacoota address.  During the parties’ time living there, two of her friends visited and she rented the holiday house next door for them and she stayed with them for one night. The parties lived together at the Penshurst address for a few months and during that time her son visited for a little over a month. This information was put to the sponsor because it was inconsistent with his evidence as follows: the parties lived in accommodation two bedrooms at the Mallacoota address. During the time, the visa applicant’s friends visited and he rented a hotel where the two friends and the parties stayed. The parties lived together at the Penshurst address for less than a year and the visa applicant’s son lived with the parties for less than nine months.

34. In a post hearing submission, the sponsor responded and stated that he Mallacoota accommodation was a one bedroomed granny flat. However, the bedroom was so small that they moved the bed to the lounge room and this is why he said it was accommodation with two bedrooms. When the visa applicant’s friends visited, the parties stayed in the holiday flat with a family suite, with the friends. After some drinks, the friends and the visa applicant went to bed for further chats.  The visa applicant didn’t realise that he stayed in the lounge room because he left early the next morning for work. The visa applicant’s son visited twice, on one occasion he stayed a month and on another occasion he stayed for nine months in Dapto.  He referenced the lease for the Dapto address and his ex-accountant’s business card and Dapto club manager’s business card. 

35. The Tribunal would expect that the parties could provide consistent information about their living arrangements and consistent details about their visitors including the sponsor’s son. The Tribunal is of the view that the sponsor is fabricating his response to the inconsistent information.

1. The Tribunal put information to the sponsor under s.359AA of the Act as follows:

   ·The visa applicant told the Tribunal the following: the sponsor was currently employed in a restaurant and had worked there for six months to one year. The sponsor didn’t tell her the days he worked. He had a take home salary of $1,000 weekly and does not do any other type of work. He worked for a transport company for a year and worked in Mallacoota for over one year. The last time she worked was in November 2018 as a beautician. She worked full-time sometimes five days a week for 10 hours daily and earned $HK1,500 to $HK1,600 monthly. This information was put to the sponsor because it was inconsistent with his evidence as follows: he worked three days a week in a restaurant with a take home salary of $200 daily and sometimes he did painting work. He worked as a courier for one year. He worked in Mallacoota for two years.  He also worked for a city group catering service for two to three years and when he returned to Sydney he would visit the visa applicant. The sponsor was unable to say how long the visa applicant had worked for her November 2018 employer or who her employer was.  He said that he didn’t know the days she worked or her salary, however she worked on and off. He stated that he doesn’t tell the sponsor how many hours he works or where he works.

2. In a post hearing submission, the Sponsor responded and stated that he has had difficulty finding work and worked multiple jobs but told the visa applicant he worked in a restaurant earning $1,000 weekly. He was ashamed to tell the visa applicant about his hardship and this is why the visa applicant didn’t know much about his employment. Because of his financial difficulty and inability to send the visa applicant money to support her living expenses he did not ask her whether she was working part-time or full-time. He stated that the visa applicant confused his employment and he also confused his employment because of his poor memory. After checking his files he realised that between 2012 and 2013 he ran a bistro in Dapto and in 2011-2012 he worked for the city group and in 2012-2013 he worked for a buffet restaurant in Tamworth.

3. The Tribunal found the visa applicant and the sponsor to be unable to provide consistent information about general aspects of their household. It considers it reasonable for a couple in a spousal relationship to be able to provide consistent information about their living arrangements. Although the sponsor stated that the parties shared housework and the visa applicant did the cooking, there is little independent evidence to support this claim. This led the Tribunal not to accept the parties’ claims about their living arrangements or about them sharing the responsibility for housework.

4. Regarding the social aspects of the parties’ relationship, in November 2015 the parties’ stated the following: they went shopping together, enjoyed walking around Chinatown and Darling Harbour, visited the Aquarium and going to the casino and the fish markets. They visited the Nan Tien Temple in Wollongong and had a barbeque at Ms Siu’s home and celebrated the sponsor’s birthday with Ms Siu and their common friend David and they dined at various places. They went to the Gold Coast to celebrate their engagement and stayed at Jupiters Hotel. When the visa applicant returned to Hong Kong, the parties remained in contact and the sponsor visited her in 2012 and met her family. The parties celebrated their marriage on 26 January 2014. They honeymooned with the visa applicant’s sister in Macau. In August 2015, the sponsor travelled to Hong Kong and the parties travelled to Thailand and Taiwan for ten days.  During this time the visa applicant was granted a visitor visa and entered Australia with the sponsor. In a statutory declarations dated February 2015, Chung Ping stated that the sponsor is her cousin and the sponsor brought the visa applicant for dinner and met her when she was in Sydney.  She stated that the parties married in Hong Kong.  She is confident that the visa applicant is the right person for the sponsor. In March 2016, Guang Hua, who is a friend of the sponsor’s, stated that, he meets the sponsor when he returns to Sydney.  He and his wife go to karaoke with the parties. From his catch ups he feels that the sponsor is being cared for by the visa applicant. Other statements are from Peter and Margaret who stated that, when the visa applicant returned to Australia in September 2015, the parties lived together. Peter stated that the sponsor worked as a cook and he enjoyed his company and Margaret stated that she enjoyed the visa applicant’s company.  They both stated that the parties are a loving and inseparable married couple. Chung Ping told the Tribunal that the sponsor had told her to come to say she knew the visa applicant. While the visa applicant was in Sydney, the sponsor took her to visit his cousin and she went for yum cha with the visa applicant and sometimes with the parties. Photographic evidence depicts the parties’ together and with others at different locations. The Tribunal accepts that the parties represent themselves and are seen as being married to each other and that they plan and undertake joint social activities together. While the Tribunal accepts that the witnesses at the Tribunal hearing and the authors of third party statements believe the parties’ relationship to be genuine, the Tribunal is of the view that these statements do not outweigh the inconsistent information the parties provided to the Tribunal.  This inconsistent information led the Tribunal to have significant concerns about the parties’ credibility, as is discussed in this decision record.

5. Regarding the parties’ commitment to each other, the parties met in 2011. In June 2012, the parties became engaged.  The sponsor told the Tribunal that they did not live together prior to their marriage. The Tribunal accepts that the parties’ married on 26 January 2014 in Hong Kong and have been married for more than five years. The visa applicant has visited Australia several times since the parties’ marriage and the sponsor has travelled to Hong Kong. The sponsor told the Tribunal that the parties would save to buy their own home and run a small catering business and if the visa is not granted to the visa applicant he will go to Hong Kong to live. However, the parties provided inconsistent information about different aspects of their relationship. When a couple provides consistent information about their relationship it provides the Tribunal with an insight into the companionship and emotional support they draw from each other and about whether they see their relationship as long term. In this case, the parties provided inconsistent information about their financial resources and about their living arrangements.   

6. Overall, the Tribunal considers it reasonable for partners who claim to be in a genuine and continuing relationship for many years to be able to provide consistent information about their financial resources and about their living arrangements including about their employment, their working days, hours and salaries. Although the sponsor claimed that the visa applicant did the cooking and that they shared housework, their evidence about their day-to-day lives and living arrangements was inconsistent. Collectively this led the Tribunal not to be satisfied that the parties are credible. It is not satisfied, on the evidence, that the parties provide each other with companionship and emotional support or that they see their relationship as long term.

7. 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 at the time of this decision.

   Other considerations

8. In putting information to the sponsor under s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal told the sponsor that the information would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision.  The sponsor was told of the relevance and consequences of the information.  He was invited to comment on or respond to the information and told that he could seek additional time to comment on or respond to the information. The sponsor responded to some of the information put to him at the Tribunal hearing.  He sought and was granted additional time to comment on or respond to other information put to him.

9. During the Tribunal hearing the sponsor stated that both he and the visa applicant are forgetful and may not be able to remember specific dates. The Tribunal accepts that specific dates may at times be difficult to remember.  It does not accept that the inconsistent information the parties provided about their financial resources and their living arrangements is due to them being forgetful.  The Tribunal considers it reasonable for two people who have known each other for approximately eight years and who have been in a married relationship for more than five years to be able to provide consistent information about their financial resources and about their living arrangements. The Tribunal provided the sponsor additional time to provide the relevant bank statements and any other information in support of the review. The information provided by the sponsor in a post Tribunal hearing submission is recorded throughout this decision record.

10. This decision record is a synopsis of the information before the Tribunal. In coming to its decision the Tribunal considered all the evidence individually and as a whole, including the Department and Tribunal files and the evidence pre-and post-hearing and at the Tribunal hearings. The Tribunal considered the third party statements and is of the view that these statements do not outweigh the Tribunal’s concerns about the lack of information about other aspects of the parties’ relationship. While the Tribunal accepts that the parties know each other, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the sponsor and the visa applicant are in a spousal relationship. Given the inconsistent evidence and the Tribunal’s concerns about the parties’ credibility and notwithstanding the information provided, the Tribunal, is not prepared to accept the parties’ evidence about their commitment to the relationship. The parties have not satisfied the Tribunal that they have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, that they have a genuine and continuing relationship, or that they live together and not separately and apart on a permanent basis. The visa applicant therefore does not meet the requirements of s.5F of the Act.

11. Therefore the visa applicant does not meet cl.309.211(2) and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

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

    DECISION

13. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas.

    Helena Claringbold
    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).