Diaz (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1718

Diaz (Migration) [2021] AATA 1718 (14 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Arleen Villanea Diaz
Miss Avril Claire Diaz Orbon
Miss Menchie Caroline Diaz Hunter

CASE NUMBER:  1809368

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2016/4219231

MEMBER:Adrienne Millbank

DATE:14 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visas.

Statement made on 14 May 2021 at 12:14pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 (Partner) – genuine and continuing relationship – previous sponsorship within 5 years with no compelling reason to waive criteria – at time of tribunal’s decision, sponsorship limitation no longer applies – validly married in Australia – newborn child an Australian citizen – limited evidence of finances provided, with no changes since delegate’s decision – joint bank account unused – long-term plan to use proceeds of sale of applicant’s house in home country to buy out sponsor’s first partner’s half-share of house in Australia – household and social aspects of relationship – nature of commitment – difference in ages and life stages, and sponsor’s health – members of family unit – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F(2), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.15A(3), 1.20J, Schedule 2, cl 820.211(2)(a), 820.211(4)(a), 820.221, 820.321

CASE
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 Home Affairs on 28 March 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The first named applicant (the applicant) is a citizen of the Philippines, born in September 1985 and aged 35 at the time of decision. The second and third-named applicants are her daughters, from two previous relationships, born in the Philippines in March 2007 and May 2013 and aged 14 and eight at the time of decision.

3. The sponsor is an Australian citizen by birth, born in June 1960 and 60 years old at the time of decision. He declared two previous relationships: a de facto relationship from which he has four adult children; and a marriage, in September 2013, with a Thai national whom he married and sponsored for a Partner visa while she was in Australia on a visitor visa. He lodged that sponsorship application on 31 March 2014, and his then wife was granted a Partner (Residence) (Subclass 801) visa on 6 November 2014.

4. The applicant and sponsor claim they met on an online dating site on 16 August 2014, and first met in person on 23 October 2014 at Manila airport, in the Philippines. The applicant first arrived in Australia on a Visitor (Subclass 600) visa on 12 May 2015, and was granted two further visitor visas. She married the sponsor in Australia on 18 November 2016, and applied for the visa on 14 December 2016.

5. At the time of application, 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 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.

6. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl 820.211(2)(a). The delegate was not satisfied that the parties were in a genuine relationship. The delegate further found that the applicant did not meet cl 820.221(4)(a), because the sponsor did not meet reg 1.20J: he had sponsored his previous wife on a Partner visa within five years of the delegate’s decision, and the delegate was not satisfied that there were compelling reasons to waive the criteria. (The sponsor had claimed he was diagnosed with leukemia in 2015; that he needed the ongoing support of the applicant; and that he had bonded with and was a father-figure to the applicant’s two daughters.)

7. A hearing scheduled for 9 March 2021 was cancelled at the request of the applicant, for the reason that she was heavily pregnant, with a ‘delicate pregnancy’, and didn’t want to go through the stress of a hearing in her condition. On 3 May 2021 and 4 May 2021, the Tribunal received evidence, a Proof of Birth Declaration, and a birth certificate, that the parties have a son, born in Rockhampton on 6 April 2021.

8. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 May 2021, by MS Teams video, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the sponsor. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tagalog and English languages.

9. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent, who attended the hearing.

10. Further documents (a copy of the parties’ marriage certificate and a letter from a medical practitioner confirming that the applicant has been diagnosed with leukemia), were received after the hearing, on 7 May 2021.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

12. The issues in the present case are whether the applicant was in a genuine spouse or de facto relationship with the sponsor at the time of application and this decision, and whether the sponsor is affected by the reg 1.20J sponsorship limitation.

13. The sponsor lodged his sponsorship application for his former wife on 31 March 2014. More than five years have elapsed since that date. Therefore, at the time of this decision, he is not affected by reg 1.20J.

14. Regarding the genuineness of the parties’ relationship, cl 820.211(2)(a) and cl 820.221 require that at the time the visa application was made, and at the time of this decision, the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. In the present case the applicant claims to be the spouse of the sponsor who is an Australian citizen by birth.

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). In forming an opinion about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties’ household and their commitment to each other as set out in reg 1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.

    Are the parties validly married?

16. If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. A Queensland Marriage Certificate was provided to the Tribunal, certifying that the parties married in Yeppoon on 18 November 2016. On the evidence, the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act as required by s 5F(2)(a).

    Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?

    Financial aspects of the relationship

17. The parties claimed at the time of application that they created a joint bank account ‘for the future’, 12 months before lodging the application. The sponsor claimed, in a written statement provided to the Department, that this joint account was ‘the biggest evidence of relationship commitment, alongside our marriage, and the effort and expense of the visa applications’. However, no documentary evidence has been provided that the joint account existed or exists, or that it has been used by the parties to pool their financial resources and share expenses. The applicant provided statements of transactions from her bank accounts showing she paid the visa charges. At hearing, the applicant confirmed that she and the sponsor have maintained their own personal accounts, into which their respective incomes have been, and continue to be, deposited.

18. At the time of application, the sponsor stated that he owned his house in Yeppoon, where he lives with the applicant, and that he intended to keep paying the utility bills from his own financial resources. At hearing, he clarified that he and his former de facto partner, the mother of his children, jointly own the house, and still have a mortgage on it. He stated that he pays this mortgage, and that he continues to pay the utility bills. The applicant clarified that, regarding the household’s electricity bills, which are usually around AUD800 or AUD900, the sponsor pays the first AUD500, and she pays the rest. She stated that this arrangement reflects the extra electricity that she and her daughters use.

19. In written statements at the time of application the parties claimed that they share household expenses through the following arrangement: the sponsor pays for food and entertainment one week, and the applicant pays these expenses the next. At hearing the applicant confirmed that they still follow this arrangement.

20. No evidence was provided that the sponsor has transferred funds at any time, for any purpose, to the applicant, or that he has paid any expenses of any kind for the secondary applicants. Evidence was provided that the applicant has transferred sums of money to the sponsor. Statements of transactions she provided from two of her bank accounts show that she transferred the following amounts on the following dates: AUD10 for ‘rent’ on 3 December 2017; AUD60 for an undisclosed purpose on 7 December 2017; AUD5 for an undisclosed purpose on 23 December 2017; AUD100 for an undisclosed purpose on 8 January 2018; and AUD520 for ‘car aircon’ on 14 January 2018. 

21. The Tribunal does not find the parties’ weekly-turn, household cost splitting arrangements, or the applicant’s money transfers to the sponsor, consistent with a spouse relationship. The Tribunal finds the parties’ financial arrangements rather to reflect a house-share situation, whereby the applicant has covered the living expenses for herself and her daughters in a household that has comprised six people: the applicant and her two daughters, and the sponsor and his son and youngest daughter.   

22. The sponsor provided no information or evidence prior to the hearing about his financial situation, including his income, assets, investments, or holdings in his bank account or accounts. He advised at hearing that he has not been in paid employment since 2002, and that his income for the last nearly 20 years has been in the form of a government, carer pension. He advised that he cares for his youngest daughter, who is 22 years of age, has an intellectual impairment and has always lived with him. He stated that apart from his share of the house he jointly purchased with his former de facto partner, where their youngest daughter still lives and their son lived until recently, and on which around AUD47,000 is still owing, his assets include a number of cars. He stated that these cars include two second-hand vehicles he purchased from his children ‘to help them out’.

23. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether the sponsor still picked her up from work and the girls up from school, as per the copies of messages she provided to the Tribunal. The applicant stated that she has been ‘independent’ for some years, since she purchased a car of her own, and has not needed the sponsor to pick up her daughters from school, or to pick her up from work or shopping. She stated that she purchased her car with her income from her employment, and confirmed that the car is registered and insured in her name. She then stated that she pays registration and insurance for two of the five vehicles at the house; and that the latest car acquired was registered and insured in joint names. No further information or evidence was provided regarding the purchase or value or registration of that car, other than the sponsor’s statement that it was purchased ‘with cash’. In any event, the Tribunal does not find the registration and insurance of one car in joint names, of itself, to be persuasive evidence that the applicant and the sponsor have pooled resources as a couple.

24. The applicant provided evidence at the time of application that she owns two properties in the Philippines, from which she receives rental incomes. She claimed at the time of application that half of the rental income from these properties went towards ‘household expenses’, and half was saved ‘for all of our futures’. No substantiating evidence was provided of any savings towards a future with the sponsor. Evidence was also provided at the time of application that the applicant and her youngest daughter are in receipt of pensions from the estate of her former partner, a citizen of the UK who died in the Philippines in November 2013. At hearing the applicant confirmed that she still receives rental income from her properties in the Philippines and that she and her youngest daughter still receive pensions from the estate of her former partner. She stated that she lived on the rental income and pensions until she obtained full-time employment in Yeppoon, as a housekeeper. She stated that the pensions don’t amount to a lot, around AUD100 a month in total. She advised that she has taken maternity leave, from February 2021, and intends to return to her full-time position of employment in three months.

25. Other than the parties’ claim that they opened a joint bank account sometime in 2015, and the applicant’s claim that they have jointly registered and insured a car, no claim was made by the parties that they have pooled their financial resources. No claim was made that they have joint ownership of any assets (other than the jointly-registered car); or that they have any joint liabilities; or that they have any legal obligations owed to the other party other than those arising from the fact of their marriage. The applicant stated at hearing that the sponsor is listed as a beneficiary in her superannuation account, but no documentary evidence was provided of this.

26. As noted, the parties each have assets in the form of residential property and land. At hearing, the sponsor described a long-term plan, whereby after the applicant receives a permanent visa, she will sell her one or both of her properties in the Philippines and they will use the money to buy his former de facto out from her half share in the house. The Tribunal acknowledges that the parties have outlined a plan whereby they might pool their assets in the future. The Tribunal notes that the plan is contingent on the applicant obtaining permanent residence, and is not convinced that it shows they were and are in a genuine relationship.

27. The Tribunal put to the parties at hearing that the delegate had spelled out in the decision record that they did not provide evidence showing they had combined their affairs consistent with a spouse relationship; and that the evidence they did provide at the time of application specifically about the financial aspects of their relationship was insufficient to show that they were in a genuine relationship. However, they provided no further evidence of a relationship, apart from that relating to the birth of their child in April 2021, to the Tribunal.

28. The sponsor argued that ample evidence of relationship has been provided in the form of photos, screen shots of his and the applicant’s communications with each other, and their stories and statements of commitment. The applicant confirmed that she had read and understood the delegate’s decision, and that a copy had been provided to the Tribunal. She confirmed that there has been no change, since the time of application, or since the delegate’s decision, in the way she and the sponsor manage their finances.

29. The Tribunal notes that at the time of application, in her application form, the applicant stated:

    So far the only legal commitment we have undertaken has been marriage, as we have not as yet lived together permanently as a couple we have no joint debts, ownership of real estate or major assets together …’

30. At the time of this decision, on the evidence, the parties have still not combined their affairs as a couple. The Tribunal finds the parties’ separate financial arrangements inconsistent with their claim to be in a genuine relationship, and gives significant weight to this finding.

    Nature of the household

31. Copies of mail and address labels were provided showing the parties have lived at the same residential address in Yeppoon since 2016. The parties confirmed at hearing that the household has comprised six people: the sponsor’s 25-year-old son lived with them until around seven months ago. The applicant stated that her daughters attend local primary and secondary schools.

32. At hearing the applicant stated that the sponsor ‘is a good father’. The sponsor stated that he has bonded with the applicant’s daughters, particularly the youngest daughter. A large number of photos were provided showing the sponsor with the applicant and her daughters; showing the sponsor playing with the applicant’s daughters; and showing the sponsor holding or carrying the applicant’s youngest daughter. The photos were taken on several occasions, and have the appearance of being taken for the purpose of the visa application.

33. The parties stated in written statements at the time of application that they share the housework. The sponsor at hearing stated that his house was a chaotic, discordant, and unhappy place, and that the applicant has brought a sense of calm into it, and happiness for him.

34. The Tribunal accepts that the sponsor enjoys sharing his house with the applicant and her daughters; that the sponsor has gone on outings and played with the applicant’s children; and that he would have shared some of their care, for example, by (as demonstrated in the printouts provided of the parties’ messages) picking them up from school before the applicant bought her own car. No claim was made or evidence provided that the sponsor has assumed joint responsibility for the support of the applicant’s children, through such things as paying for their school fees and expenses, or purchasing sporting equipment for them, or participating in parent events and activities at their schools.

35. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence provided that the applicants have lived in the sponsor’s house, and that the applicant and the sponsor would have shared the housework and care and supervision of their children. The Tribunal accepts that they share joint responsibility for the care and support of their newborn son, but is nevertheless not satisfied that they have established a joint household, together, as a couple.

    Social aspects of the relationship

36. Photos were provided of the parties’ wedding ceremony on a beach in Yeppoon. A number of other photos were provided showing the parties with other people, in several different locations, but very few captions were provided. The applicant stated at hearing that the wedding was attended by two of the sponsor’s daughters, and two friends. She stated that none of her family in the Philippines attended, because of the distance and cost. She acknowledged that none of her family have provided any written statement of support and recognition of the relationship. She stated that the sponsor met several of her siblings in the Philippines, and that he has met her parents ‘on cam’, that is, over the internet. She stated that her family in the Philippines knows about the marriage. She stated that the sponsor did not accompany her on her trip there with her daughters, in 2018, because he had to care for his daughter.

1. A statutory declaration signed on 2 February 2018 was provided by one of the sponsor’s daughters, who stated that she saw the parties weekly; that her son and daughter, the sponsor’s grandchildren, played with the applicant’s children; that she had observed her father to be happy in the relationship; and that she welcomed the applicant and her daughters into the family. A statutory declaration signed on 23 January 2018 was provided by the sponsor’s son, who stated that he has lived with the parties, is friends with them both on social media, and has happily accepted the applicant and her daughters into the family.  

2. The Tribunal accepts that the sponsor’s children and the applicant’s siblings and parents know that the parties married. The Tribunal accepts that at least two of the sponsor’s children support the relationship and the visa application. The Tribunal accepts that the parties have planned and undertaken outings together in family groups with their children. The evidence does not support, however, and the Tribunal does not find, that the parties are recognised and related as a married couple by extended family members.  

   Nature of persons' commitment to each other

3. The parties claim they became engaged in December 2015. They have been married, as noted, for over four and a half years, since November 2016.

4. The parties claimed in written statements at the time of application that they travelled together, to the Gold and Sunshine Coasts. At hearing they confirmed that this was when the applicant was visiting Australia without her daughters. The applicant stated that she and the sponsor have not travelled together since the sponsor drove them from the Brisbane airport to Yeppoon, on her last arrival.  She stated that she returned to Philippines with her daughters in 2018, but the sponsor did not accompany her because he had to stay with his daughter.

5. As noted, photos were provided of the parties together. Printouts of their internet communications and phone text messages, undated, were provided at the time of application. Many of the messages exchanged after the applicant and her daughters arrived in Australia are about the sponsor picking the applicant and her daughters up from shopping and school. From the contents of their earliest communications, when they were in different countries and ‘sparks flew’ between them, the Tribunal accepts that they entered into a sexual relationship soon after meeting.

6. The Tribunal asked the applicant when she and the sponsor first discussed the prospect of marriage. The applicant was evasive and non-responsive to this question. She stated ‘three or two years’. She then stated that she married the sponsor because, as a Catholic, she was uncomfortable living with him out of wedlock. She subsequently acknowledged that they had to wait for the sponsor to obtain a divorce from his first wife. The Tribunal was not convinced by the applicant’s claim that she and the sponsor married because as a Catholic she was not happy living out of wedlock. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s second relationship, from which she has a daughter, was a de facto relationship. The Tribunal considers that the parties married for the purpose of the visa application

7. Regarding the birth of their son, the Tribunal asked the parties why, in their circumstances — the sponsor is over 60 years old, a grandfather, has leukemia and has not been in employment for nearly two decades, and the applicant’s visa application was refused and she does not hold a substantive visa — they chose to have a child. They responded that the pregnancy was not planned, it ‘just happened’. The sponsor argued that if he and the applicant intended to have a child to get a visa, they would have done so sooner. The applicant then stated, regarding her son, that she could not travel to the Philippines with him ‘because of COVID’; the sponsor could not live in the Philippines because the cost of his health care would be prohibitive; and the sponsor could not leave Australia because of his daughter. The representative submitted that, as an Australian citizen, the parties’ son is entitled to live in Australia with his parents, and it would be unreasonable to expect him to grow up in ‘a third-world country’. The Tribunal was not convinced by the applicant’s claim that her pregnancy ‘just happened’, and considers it likely she had a child when she did in order to bolster her visa application.

8. The Tribunal acknowledges that the motivation of obtaining a visa is not incompatible with a genuine relationship. The Tribunal acknowledges that the parties have been and are in a relationship. In this case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the relationship they were in at the time of application was a genuine married relationship, and is not satisfied that it has since developed into a genuine married relationship. 

9. The sponsor described at hearing how he suffered abuse and unhappiness in his previous relationships. He stated that his de facto partner, the mother of his children, was unfaithful and turned his children against him, and his previous wife was unforgiving. He acknowledged that he ‘made mistakes’ with his previous sponsored partner, which he attributed to communication problems because of her poor English and his ‘addiction’ to chatting with (and being flattered by) women on internet dating sites. He stated that he no longer goes on the internet. He stated that he wants the applicant and her daughters, who are doing well at school and have ‘integrated’, to remain in Australia.

10. The applicant presented at hearing as articulate and capable. She confirmed that she holds a four-year degree in computing from a university in the Philippines. She advised that she is highly valued by her current employer, who is looking forward to her return. She stated that she had career plans but put them aside when she entered into a relationship in the Philippines with a citizen of the UK, and had another daughter. She stated she now has no long-term plans other than to continue living with the sponsor, in his house, and to work in Yeppoon.

11. The sponsor argued with some vehemence at hearing that he is happy in the relationship, and that should suffice. The Tribunal put to the sponsor that he had claimed to be happy in his relationship with his previous sponsored partner, and to be committed to his relationship with her, to the exclusion of all others, long-term. The Tribunal put to the sponsor that his former sponsored partner was granted a permanent visa on the basis of being in a partner relationship with him, while he was courting and living with the applicant from August 2014. The Tribunal asked the sponsor whether he had advised the Department about the breakdown of his relationship with his former partner, and withdrawn his sponsorship.

12. The sponsor stated that he told the Department that his relationship with his former partner had broken down, but didn’t withdraw his sponsorship. He stated that he knew his former partner obtained a permanent visa and was living in Brisbane, but didn’t know when or how she got the visa. The representative pointed out that it is Departmental practice, in cases where applicants obtain visas because they are found to meet criteria other than relationship criteria, such as domestic violence criteria, for the sponsor not to be advised regarding the outcome of the application.

13. The Tribunal notes that in her application form the applicant stated that she and the sponsor ‘fell in love very quickly’ when they connected through the internet dating site in August 2014. The Tribunal notes that the parties spent a cumulative total of less than four months in the same country before claiming they became officially engaged; they spent around six months in the same country before they married; and the applicant lodged the application several weeks after the marriage.

14. The Tribunal accepts that the parties have lived together in Australia since September 2016; that they married and have a son; and that they would have provided companionship and emotional support to each other.  Nevertheless, given the discrepancies in the parties’ ages and life stages, the short time between their connecting on the internet and entering into a claimed committed relationship; and their failure after over four and a half years of a claimed committed relationship to significantly pool their assets and merge their affairs, the Tribunal is not satisfied that they have provided companionship and support to each other within the context of a genuine relationship. The Tribunal has concerns regarding the degree and mutuality of commitment to the relationship long-term.

    Findings

15. The Tribunal has considered the circumstances of the relationship and weighed and balanced the claims and evidence in considering the matters set out in reg 1.15A(3).

16. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others; and that they are in a genuine and continuing relationship.

17. 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 or the time of this decision.

18. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl 820.211(2)(a) or cl 820.221.

19. No claim was made, or information was before the Tribunal that the alternative criteria in cls 820.211(7), 820.211(8), 820.211(9), 820.221(2), 820.221(3) (death, family violence, child exceptions) are met.

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

21. The second and third-named applicants are not dependent on, or members of the family unit of, a person who satisfies the primary criteria. Therefore, they do not meet cl 820.321.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visas.

    Adrienne Millbank
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

    1.15A     Spouse

    (1)For subsection 5F (3) of the Act, this regulation sets out arrangements for the purpose of determining whether 1 or more of the conditions in paragraphs 5F (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act exist.

    (2)If the Minister is considering an application for:

    (a)a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; or

    (b)a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa; or

    (c)a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa; or

    (d)a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa;

    the Minister must consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, including the matters set out in subregulation (3).

    (3)The matters for subregulation (2) are:

    (a)the financial aspects of the relationship, including:

    (i)       any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; and

    (ii)      any joint liabilities; and

    (iii)     the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments; and

    (iv)    whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other; and

    (v)     the basis of any sharing of day to day household expenses; and

    (b)the nature of the household, including:

    (i)       any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; and

    (ii)      the living arrangements of the persons; and

    (iii)     any sharing of the responsibility for housework; and

    (c)the social aspects of the relationship, including:

    (i)       whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; and

    (ii)      the opinion of the persons’ friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and

    (iii)     any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities; and

    (d)the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other, including:

    (i)       the duration of the relationship; and

    (ii)      the length of time during which the persons have lived together; and

    (iii)     the degree of companionship and emotional support that the persons draw from each other; and

    (iv)    whether the persons see the relationship as a long term one.

    (4)If the Minister is considering an application for a visa of a class other than a class mentioned in subregulation (2), the Minister may consider any of the circumstances mentioned in subregulation (3).