Dau (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 921

Dau (Migration) [2025] ARTA 921 (9 May 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Miss Thi Thu Huong Dau
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2418078

Tribunal: General MemberC Kannis
Place:Perth
Date: 9 May 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa:
·cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
·cl 820.221(3)(b)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 09 May 2025 at 7:31am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 – relationship with the sponsor had ceased – a child of the parties’ relationship was born – applicant and the sponsor had a mutual commitment to each other – they were in a genuine and continuing relationship – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F, 65, 359, 376
Migration Regulations 1994(Cth), r 1.15, Schedule 2, cls 820.211,820.221
CASES
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206
Tran v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 44
Srour v MIMIA [2006] FCA 1228
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister 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 19 May 2017 on the basis of her relationship with her 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 visa was refused because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant’s relationship with the sponsor met the definition of a spousal relationship under the Act and therefore she did not satisfy cl 820.211(2)(a).
The applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT). On 9 August 2019, 23 October 2019 and 17 February 2020, the AAT conducted hearings after which it affirmed the Department’s decision.
The applicant sought review of the decision of the AAT and on 9 May 2024, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the AAT to reconsider and determine the matter according to law. The reason for remittal was that the AAT failed to comply with s 359A/s 359AA of the Act in relation to evidence given by the sponsor during the hearing.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
A copy of the Decision Record was submitted to the Tribunal by the applicant for the purposes of the review.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 April 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Van Tuan Hoang and Ms Thi Thanh Xuan Phung. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Clauses 820.211(2) 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.
Section 5F of the Act 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 husband and wife 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 as to these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household and the persons’ 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 r.1.15A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.
On 4 December 2024, the representative advised the Tribunal that the applicant’s relationship with the sponsor had ceased and that they have a child together. There are limited circumstances in which an applicant can meet the time of decision criteria when a relationship has ceased. Clause 820.221(1) indicates that a genuine partner relationship within the meaning of the Act must have existed before the relationship ceased and the applicant would have otherwise met subclauses 820.211(2), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (9) or meets the requirements of subclause 820.221 (2) or (3). This means there is a threshold requirement that a genuine partner relationship must have existed and if the relevant spousal or de facto relationship never existed, the exceptions in subclauses 820.221 (2) or (3) cannot be made out.
The applicant is a Vietnamese national. The sponsor is an Australian citizen. The applicant and the sponsor claim to have met in 2016 and they were married on 18 May 2017.
The evidence before the Tribunal was that the applicant and the sponsor separated on 8 December 2023 A Divorce Order made by the Family Court of Western Australia was provided and stated that the divorce order will take effect and terminate the parties’ marriage on 8 April 2025.
In a statutory declaration dated 11 March 2025 the applicant said although the sponsor ceased living with her in December 2023 she hoped for a reconciliation and therefore they remained in contact and he visited her and their newborn child. She said in April 2024 she ceased contact with the sponsor save for contact about their child.
In the present case, the relationship has ceased and therefore the applicant cannot continue to meet cl 820.211(2). The sponsoring partner has not died and therefore cl 820.221(2) has no application. No family violence claims have been made and therefore cl 820.221(3)(b)(i) has no application. The applicant has made a claim based on the child exception in cl 820.221(3)(b)(ii)
The issues are whether the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor meets the definition of ‘spouse’ in s 5F of the Act at the time of application; and if so whether the applicant would continue to meet the requirements of the cl 820.211(2) except that the relationship with the sponsor has ceased and she meets the exception in cl 820.221(3)(b)(ii).
Are the parties validly married?
If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a spousal relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The evidence provided included a Certificate of Marriage showing the applicant and the sponsor married on 18 May 2017.
On the basis of the written evidence before it the Tribunal concludes that the marriage satisfies the requirements for a valid marriage for the purpose of the Act as required by s 5F(2)(a).
The Tribunal considered the reg 1.15A(3) matters.
Are the other requirements for a spousal relationship met?
Financial aspects of the relationship
The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to the financial aspects including joint ownership of assets, joint liabilities, any legal obligations owed to the other party, the extent of pooling of financial resources and any sharing of day-to-day household expenses.
ANZ Access Advantage statements for an account in the parties’ joint names were provided. The statements were for the periods from 2018 to 2024.
In 2018, the credit transactions primarily consisted of the applicant’s salary payments. The debit transactions included payments for petrol, groceries and phone payments. In 2019 the credit transactions included payments from the applicant’s salary payments and Card Entries. In 2020 the credit transactions included payments from the applicant’s salary payments. As it appeared that the sponsor did not make any significant contribution to the joint account in 2018, 2019 and 2020, the Tribunal asked the applicant the reason the account was opened. In response the applicant said the purpose of the account was that she and the sponsor could share everything in life with each other.
The applicant told the Tribunal that when the sponsor was in Vietnam he did not work. She said when he was in Vietnam during the COVID-19 pandemic she provided financial support to him. She said he did not need much money to live on in Vietnam but when he asked for money she transferred it to him. The Tribunal pointed out that no evidence of money transfers had been provided and in response both the applicant and the representative referred to messaging between the applicant and the sponsor as evidence of money transfers.
The applicant told the Tribunal that the sponsor’s income from employment was paid into another account in his name in 2018 and 2019 however this changed at a later date and his wages were paid into the joint account. In 2023 the credit transactions included payments on 23 November 2023 and 7 December 2023 which appear to be the sponsor’s wages.
Given the information covered by a s 376 certificate dated 17 July 2024 (see below) the Tribunal gives the evidence with respect to the joint account after 2019 minimal weight as the sponsor was in a relationship with another person at those times.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she and the sponsor did not have joint ownership of assets or joint liabilities and the Tribunal so finds. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any legal obligations owed to the other party and the Tribunal so finds.
There is minimal evidence that the parties have pooled their financial resources and shared day-to-day financial responsibilities during the relationship including at the time of application.
Nature of the household
The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to the nature of the household including any joint responsibility for care and support of children, the parties’ living arrangements and any sharing of housework.
Utility bills in the sponsor’s names dated in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for a property at Redbank Drive Ellenbrook WA 6069 (Redbank Drive) were provided. The applicant’s and the sponsor’s Individual Taxation Returns for 2019 indicated their home address was Redbank Drive. In the applicant’s Application for a Bridging visa lodged 11 July 2017 she indicated her residential address was Redbank Drive.
Utilising the s 359A of the Act procedure, the Tribunal put to the applicant for her comment that the sponsor’s records show he was absent from Australia from 18 February 2020 until 16 April 2022. The applicant told the Tribunal that the sponsor travelled to Vietnam and was unable to return to Australia due to COVID-19 border closures. She said he lived with his mother in Vietnam and she lived at Redbank Drive. She told the Tribunal that she later moved to Barlow Court Lockridge WA (Barlow Court).
A Residential Tenancy Agreement in the parties’ joint names for Benara Road Noranda WA was provided. The term of the tenancy was 15 October 2023 to 15 October 2024. Given the information covered by a s 376 certificate dated 17 July 2024 (see below) the Tribunal gives the evidence with respect to the nature of the household after 2019 minimal weight as the sponsor was in a relationship with another person during that period.
The Tribunal finds that despite the limited evidence presented relating to the parties’ residential address prior to the sponsor’s departure from Australia on 18 February 2020, the parties resided together at Redbank Drive at the time of application until 18 February 2020 and this was an indicator of a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of application. There was no evidence of the sharing of household tasks at the time of application and the Tribunal so finds.
Social aspects of the relationship
The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to the social aspects of the relationship including whether the parties represent themselves to other people as being married to each other, the opinion of friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship and any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities.
A statutory declaration dated 18 May 2017 made by Thi My Yen Ho was provided. Ms Ho had known the applicant for 2 years and the sponsor for 9 months and said she socialised with the parties as a couple and stated that their relationship is genuine and continuing. Given the short time Ms Ho had known the sponsor, the Tribunal gives her evidence limited weight.
A statutory declaration dated 19 May 2017 made by Thi Quynh Nguyen was provided. Ms Nguyen had known the applicant for 6 months and the sponsor for 6 months and said she socialised with the parties as a couple and stated that their relationship is genuine and continuing. Given the short time Ms Nguyen had known the parties, the Tribunal gives his evidence minimal weight.
A statutory declaration dated 14 August 2018 made by Thi Hang Le was provided. Ms Le had known the applicant for 1 year and said the sponsor is a good husband and said he picks the applicant up from work. She said they appear to be a genuine couple. Ms Le made a subsequent statutory declaration dated 14 September 2018 in support of the parties’ relationship. Ms Le made a further statutory declaration dated 3 March 2025 in which she stated that she had known the applicant for 7 years and that she met the sponsor 7 years ago when the applicant introduced him as her husband. She said at that time the applicant and the sponsor had been married for one year and were living together. Ms Le said she socialised with the applicant and the sponsor as a couple and the sponsor was attentive and caring towards the applicant. She said near the beginning of 2023 the applicant received the news that she was pregnant and in November 2023 her child was born. Ms Le said in or around mid-2024 the applicant told her the marriage was over. Ms Le did not provide any persuasive reasons for her belief that the parties’ relationship was genuine and continuing and the Tribunal gives this evidence limited weight.
A statutory declaration dated 15 August 2018 made by Bao Ngoc Ha was provided. Ms Ha had known the applicant for 1 year and said she socialised with the parties as a couple and stated that their relationship is genuine and continuing. Ms Ha made a subsequent statutory declaration dated 21 September 2019 in support of the genuineness of the parties’ relationship which contained evidence not materially different to the evidence in her earlier statutory declaration She said the applicant had told her that she and the sponsor are planning to have children together when they have saved enough money. Ms Ha said the sponsor takes good care of the applicant. The Tribunal gives this evidence some weight.
A statutory declaration dated 15 August 2018 made by Thi Anh Pham was provided. Ms Pham had known the applicant for 2 years and the sponsor for 1 year . Ms Pham said she had no doubt the relationship will last forever. Given the brief period Ms Pham had known the parties and the absence of a persuasive reason for her belief that the relationship will last forever, the Tribunal gives her evidence limited weight.
A statutory declaration dated 15 August 2018 made by Van Tuan Hoang was provided. Mr Hoang had known the applicant for 1 year and said he socialised with the parties as a couple and they have a strong bond. He said he had never seen the parties have a disagreement and said the sponsor takes care of the applicant very gently. Mr Hoang made subsequent statutory declarations dated 21 September 2019 and 5 March 2025 in support of the genuineness of the parties’ relationship prior to the end of the marriage. The Tribunal gives this evidence some weight. Mr Hoang confirmed the evidence in his statutory declarations in his oral evidence to the Tribunal.
A statutory declaration dated 5 March 2025 made by Thi Thanh Xuan Phung was provided. Ms Phung said her husband was a friend of the sponsor and stated that they socialised with the parties as a couple. She said the parties’ relationship was genuine and said they were able to relate to each other about marriage and children. She said from all their interactions together, the way they spoke about each other in intimate details and the fact they discussed their day-to-day lives and future plans (including having children) with her and her husband showed them the relationship was genuine. The Tribunal gives this evidence some weight. Ms Phung confirmed the evidence in her statutory declaration in her oral evidence to the Tribunal. Ms Phung also confirmed that the parties resided with her and her husband at Barlow Court when the sponsor returned from Vietnam in 2022.
A Statement of Witness dated 9 August 2018 (translated) made by the applicant’s aunt (Dau Thi Thinh) was provided in support of the visa application. It appeared that Ms Thinh has not spent time with the parties as a couple and this was confirmed by the applicant during the hearing.
The applicant’s Individual Taxation Returns for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 were provided which showed she nominated the sponsor as her spouse for relevant the income year. The Tribunal gives this evidence some weight.
The sponsor’s Individual Taxation Returns for 2018 and 2019 were provided which showed he nominated the applicant as his spouse for the relevant income year. The Tribunal gives this evidence some weight.
Photographs of the parties alone and with other people in social settings were provided. The photographs taken with other people were indicated to have been taken with family members and friends and were dated in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022 and 2023. Given the information covered by a s 376 certificate dated 17 July 2024 (see below) the Tribunal gives this photographs dated in 2019, 2020, 2022 and 2023 minimal weight as the sponsor was in a relationship with another person at those times.
Photographs of the parties’ wedding were also provided. The Tribunal gives this evidence some weight.
Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that at the time of application the parties represented themselves to other people, including family and friends and the Australian Taxation Office as being in a spousal relationship with each other.
The nature of the persons’ commitment to each other
The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other including the duration of the relationship, the length of time they have lived together, the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other and whether they see the relationship as long-term.
In a Joint Relationship Statement dated 14 August 2018 the parties said their relationship is going strong and they are happy to have each other. They said they shared everything together financially and emotionally and were planning to have a child together once they saved enough money.

The Tribunal noted that the basis for remittal to the Tribunal was that the Court was not satisfied that the AAT had invited the applicant to comment on the sponsor’s evidence that the foreshadowed cancellation of the applicant’s student visa was a reason they chose to be married on 18 May 2017. The Tribunal put this information to the applicant utilising the s 376 of the Act procedure. In response her comment was that she and the sponsor found a long distance relationship challenging and they had planned to live together at the end of the year. She said when they found out her student visa may be cancelled they brought their plans forward. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence in this regard and makes no adverse finding in relation to this reason for parties’ marriage.
Evidence of communication (phone and SMS) between the parties dated in 2020, 2021 and 2022 was provided. Evidence of video calls between the parties on 23 May 2020 ,1 January 2021, 2 March 2021, 8 June 2021 and 22 February 2022 was provided. Given the information covered by a s 376 certificate dated 17 July 2024 (see below) the Tribunal gives this evidence minimal weight as the sponsor was in a relationship with another person at those times.
A Birth Certificate for a female child born on 13 November 2023 indicating that the parties are the parents of the child was provided. Photographs showing the applicant and the sponsor with their child after her birth in November 2023 and additional photos dated in March 2024 were provided.
In a pre-hearing written submission and at the conclusion of the hearing the representative submitted that given the sponsor’s infidelity, the applicant was more committed to the marriage than the sponsor. The representative submitted that mutual commitment does not have to be an equal commitment and sought to rely on the decision in Tran v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 44. The Tribunal pointed out that although the mutual commitment does not have to be an equal commitment, in order to satisfy the criteria for the visa the mutual commitment does have to be a mutual commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of others, which it appears was not the case for the sponsor from 2019.
Non-disclosure certificates
The Department issued two non-disclosure certificates pursuant to s.376 of the Act relating to information on its file, which subject to validity of the certificate, essentially means that the release of the information to which the certificate is subject is at the discretion of the Tribunal.
The certificate dated 18 December 2019 was issued on the basis that disclosure of the material would be contrary to public interest because it may disclose, or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information.
The certificate dated 17 July 2024 was issued on the basis that disclosure of the material would be contrary to public interest because it would prejudice a current or pending investigation of a possible breach of the law or enforcement of the law in a particular instance or (b) disclose, or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information.
The Tribunal considers the certificates to be valid and provided copies of the certificates to the applicant at hearing, and gave the applicant and her representative an opportunity to comment on the validity of the certificates. No submissions were sought to be made and the representative stated that she was not challenging the validity of the certificates.
The Tribunal stated that it would let the applicant know the ‘gist’ of the information that was subject to the s 376 certificates. Given the information was adverse, the Tribunal put the information to the applicant under s 359A of the Act at the hearing. The Tribunal explained the particulars of the information, the relevance of the information and the consequences of the Tribunal relying on the information.
The Tribunal noted that the information the subject of the certificate dated 18 December 2019 was discussed in the AAT hearing. This information consisted of an anonymous allegation submitted to the Department on 10 December 2019 that the applicant paid the sponsor $80,000 to enter a fake marriage and that the parties did not live at the same address. This information was put to the parties during the AAT hearing. They said they did not know who would make such an allegation. The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the adverse information. She told the Tribunal that she cannot think who would have provided such dishonest and untruthful information. She said that if she had funds of $80,000 she would have continued studying. Given that the allegation was made anonymously and that the veracity of the allegation could not be tested, the Tribunal places no weight on this evidence.
The information covered by the certificate dated 17 July 2024 included that the sponsor had married another person in Vietnam on 20 March 2023. In a statement made by this other person she said she and the sponsor met in February 2019 in Vietnam and they had a private date and officially entered into a love relationship on 6 March 2019. This other person said on 19 February 2020 the sponsor returned to Vietnam and they had had an engagement party on 19 February 2020 with their families in attendance. She said on 27 December 2020, after living together for 7 months, they found out she was pregnant. She said she had a heavy pregnancy and the sponsor was always by her side to take care of her. Their child was born on 21 September 2021. The child’s Birth Certificate shows the sponsor is the father of the child. The applicant was invited to comment on the adverse information. She said this occurred behind her back and she had zero knowledge of the sponsor’s relationship with this other person at the time. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence in this regard.
Conclusion
Where the Tribunal is considering a criterion that requires the definition of spouse to be met at the time of the visa application, the information supplied in relation to the reg 1.15A(3) matters may relate to circumstances after the time of application. The Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence, which may include evidence of events after the date of application insofar as it assists in the task of determining whether the applicant and the sponsor were in a partner relationship at the time of the application.
Despite the limited evidence, the Tribunal concludes at the time of application the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act; they were not living separately and apart on a permanent basis; they had a mutual commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of others; and the relationship was genuine and continuing. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) are met at the time of application. Therefore, the applicant meets cl 820.211(2)(a).
Is there a child in respect of whom the applicant and sponsor have parental rights and obligations?
Clause 820.221(3)(b)(ii) allows for the grant of the visa where the relationship between the applicant and the sponsoring partner has ceased and there is a child in respect of whom the applicant has custody, access, or a residence or contact order made under the Family Law Act 1975. The sponsor must also have these rights, or a child maintenance obligation.
A child of the parties’ relationship was born on 13 November 2023 at Subiaco in Western Australia. A copy of the child’s Birth Certificate shows the applicant as the mother and the sponsor as the father, Based on the Birth Certificate, the Tribunal finds that the applicant and sponsor are the child’s biological parents. There is no evidence or suggestion that the child is not in the applicant’s care.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she and he sponsor have a private agreement that their child lives with her and the sponsor provides financial support for the child each month.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that there are any formal court orders concerning custody, residence, access or contact in relation to the child. However, there is no requirement for formal court orders as evidence of custody or joint custody, or access to the child where the applicant is the biological parent of the child. The Federal Court in Srour v MIMIA [2006] FCA 1228 held, in relation to the child exception, that an applicant can have a right to custody as an incident of the statutory imposition of parental responsibility by operation of the Family Law Act 1975 in relation to a biological child and can have a formal maintenance obligation (though by operation of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 rather than the Family Law Act). Consequently, an applicant can meet the requirement to have custody of the child and can meet the requirement of having a ‘formal maintenance obligation’ in respect of the child by virtue of the general law obligations of a biological parent to his/her child, provided there is no court order granting sole custody to the other parent. In this case there is no evidence of a court order contradicting the general law provisions.
Therefore the applicant meets cl.820.221(3)(b)(ii).
Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to set aside the decision under review and remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 820 visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa:
·cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
·cl 820.221(3)(b)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
Dates of hearing(s):  29 April 2025
Representative for the Applicant:           Ms Janly Quach
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).