Diep (Migration)

[2024] AATA 2879

Diep (Migration) [2024] AATA 2879 (3 July 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:   Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:   Ms Buu Chau Diep

REPRESENTATIVE:   Mr Billie Wong (MARN: 0106421)

CASE NUMBER:   2001815

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE:          BCC2018/2830823

MEMBER:   Glynis Bartley

DATE:   3 July 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:   Sydney

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

Statement made on 3 July 2024 at 10:34am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 (Partner) – genuine spousal relationship – financial aspects – nature of the household – social aspects – nature of the commitment – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F, 65, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15A; Schedule 2, cls 820.211, 820.221

CASES

He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS ISSUE

1. The issue in this review is whether the applicant, Ms Buu Chau Diep, is the spouse of the sponsor, Mr To Ha Lieu, as defined in s 5F of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 65 of the Act.

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 28 July 2018 on the basis of her relationship with the 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.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 14 January 2020 on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.820.211 of the Regulations. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor, as defined in s 5F of the Act. The delegate noted that the applicant has a child and siblings living in Australia and the applicant did not mention wanting to spend time with the sponsor when she applied for Visitor visas in 2015 and 2017. The delegate considered that the applicant has a strong incentive to attempt to be reunited with her family members. Furthermore, as the sponsor had divorced the applicant’s sister six months prior to marrying the applicant, the delegate was concerned that the sponsor may have undertaken a divorce of convenience in order to support the applicant’s migration to Australia.

4. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision on 31 January 2020. She attached a copy of the delegate’s Decision Record to the application.

5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 June 2024 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 Cantonese language.

6. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent who attended the hearing in person.

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

BACKGROUND

1. The applicant is 65-year-old Vietnamese citizen. She has declared one previous marriage that ended in divorce. The applicant has one adult daughter from that relationship, who lives in Australia. The applicant’s parents are deceased. She has siblings living in both Australia and Vietnam. The applicant is retired. She first travelled to Australia in 2007 after being granted a Tourist visa (Subclass 676). The applicant returned to Australia in 2015 and 2018 after being granted Visitor visas (Subclass 600). Apart from two short trips to Vietnam in November 2018 and March 2023, the applicant has been living in Australia continuously since May 2018.

2. The sponsor is a 63-year-old Australian citizen by grant. He migrated to Australia from Vietnam in 2010. The sponsor has declared one previous marriage to the applicant’s younger sister, Ms Buu Quynh Diep, which ended in divorce. He has two adult children from that relationship; a son and a daughter, both of whom live in Australia. The sponsor’s parents are deceased. He has one brother living in Vietnam and two siblings living in Australia. The sponsor is retired. His income includes rent from investment properties and interest from personal loans to third parties.

3. The applicant and the sponsor (the parties) stated in the application that they met in Saigon on 30 April 1975 and developed a friendship. The applicant later went on to marry another man and gave birth to her only child, a daughter. The applicant and her first husband divorced in 1986. In 1984, the sponsor married the applicant’s younger sister, and they had two children together. The sponsor ran a business in Vietnam and employed the applicant. The parties formed a relationship in around 2014, and the sponsor divorced the applicant’s sister in late 2017. The parties were married at West Hoxton on 3 June 2018.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. Prior to the hearing, the applicant’s representative provided additional documents to the Tribunal to support the application including but not limited to the following: bank statements in the applicant’s name, the sponsor’s name and in joint names, mortgage account statements in the sponsor’s name, NSW Land Title Registry documents regarding properties owned by the sponsor, letters regarding the sponsor’s purchase of a commercial property, photographs, joint travel itineraries and boarding passes, correspondence sent to the parties at mutual addresses, witness statutory declarations and statements, tax returns in the sponsor’s name, and statutory declarations by the parties.

2. In making my decision, I have had regard to the Department and Tribunal files and the oral evidence at the hearing. I have also taken into account the information received from the applicant’s representative after the hearing.

3. The parties related to one another in a warm and familiar manner throughout the hearing and presented as comfortable in each other’s company. The applicant appeared noticeably anxious at times, in particular while the sponsor was giving oral evidence. Although the parties gave generally consistent oral evidence, including about their current living arrangements, there were a number of significant discrepancies in their oral evidence and with the documents previously submitted to support the application. I found some of the parties’ oral evidence to be implausible and was not convinced that they were being candid about the history and nature of their relationship. The parties tended to disclose matters only when specifically questioned about them, especially the applicant. I did not consider either the applicant or the sponsor to be credible and have therefore placed limited weight on their oral evidence unless corroborated by more reliable sources.

4. I put the discrepancies in the parties’ oral evidence to the applicant at the hearing in accordance with s 359AA of the Act, as follows:

   ·The applicant and sponsor gave different oral evidence regarding how many siblings the sponsor has.

   ·The applicant gave oral evidence that a sum of $560,000 transferred into the parties’ joint bank account by her sister (the sponsor’s former wife) in May 2023 was likely to assist her nephew (the son of her sister and the sponsor) to purchase a property in South Australia. In contrast, the sponsor said the money was a loan from his former wife to purchase a commercial property in Fairfield.

   ·The applicant gave oral evidence that she has three grandchildren living in Australia; a girl at university, a girl at high school and a boy in late primary school. The sponsor was aware of the number and genders of the applicant’s three grandchildren but had no idea about their ages and said that he has not seen them for between one and two years.

   ·The applicant gave oral evidence that the sponsor has not travelled to Vietnam with her sister (the sponsor’s former wife) since the parties were married in 2018. The sponsor said he spent one week at his home in Vietnam with the applicant’s sister (his former wife) in 2022, although they travelled to and from Vietnam on different flights because they do not get along. The sponsor said he and his former wife had to conclude a business they owned together during their marriage.

   ·The sponsor said it was his former wife’s decision to initiate their divorce, and that he reluctantly accepted. This is contrary to the parties’ earlier statements that the sponsor advised his former wife of the parties’ relationship in late 2017, and he and his first wife mutually agreed to divorce.

5. The applicant’s representative requested additional time (two weeks) to provide a written response to the matters raised in accordance with s 359AA of the Act, which the Tribunal granted.

6. The applicant’s representative subsequently provided statutory declarations by the parties, dated 18 June 2024. In her statutory declaration, the applicant said the following (in summary):

   ·The error regarding the sponsor’s siblings was likely due to nervousness. She has known the sponsor’s family since 1975 and the applicant cannot account for her oversight.

   ·The sponsor always handles the family’s finances, and she has had minimal involvement in their day-to-day financial affairs. However, the sponsor has always encouraged her to participate whenever financial arrangements involving his former wife are discussed. As a result, the applicant became aware that the $560,000 was actually a loan from his former wife. During the hearing, the applicant mistakenly confused this transaction with the purchase of a residential property by the sponsor’s son rather than the commercial property the sponsor had mentioned.

   ·The sponsor correctly identified the genders of her three grandchildren in the correct sequence. He was unable to confirm their ages accurately as he is not closely involved in their daily activities.

   ·The applicant was later made aware that the sponsor and his former wife flew separately to Vietnam and took different return flights to Sydney. They met in Ho Chi Minh City to finalise essential business documents related to the joint business established in Vietnam from their marriage, which had been pending since their divorce in 2017. They stayed at the applicant’s brother’s home in Ho Chi Minh City for approximately one week during their meeting in Vietnam. Prior to this, the applicant was unaware of any instances where the sponsor had travelled together with his former wife to Vietnam since their divorce.

   ·The inconsistency regarding who initiated the sponsor’s divorce can be attributed to nervousness during the hearing. The sponsor had numerous conversations with his former wife regarding the breakdown of their marriage and both parties eventually agreed that ending the marriage was the most appropriate course of action, with their divorce ultimately occurring in December 2017.

   ·The parties live together in the same household and he is a father figure to her daughter. The applicant has developed strong bonds with the sponsor’s two children. Being separated would harm both parties physically and mentally. The applicant is fully committed to standing by the sponsor’s side, regardless of whether he relocates to another country or departs from Australia indefinitely. The parties wish to spend their retirement years together.

7. In his statutory declaration, the sponsor said the following (in summary):

   ·He could honestly not recall whether the decision to terminate his marriage with his former wife was initiated by himself or by her. However, they had multiple discussions and disagreements about the continuation of their marriage during that period. The sponsor and his former wife ultimately decided that it was in the best interests of all involved that they end the marriage and divorce.

   ·Any minor inconsistencies in the oral evidence were due to nervousness while responding and the inherent challenge of recalling specific details of their daily lives over the span of so many years and decades.

   ·If the marriage was not genuine, the applicant would have returned to Vietnam rather than waiting more than four years for the Tribunal hearing.

   ·The bond between the parties is not just one of companionship, but of a deep emotional connection and shared life experiences. The thought of being forced to live apart at this stage of their lives fills them with immense mental hardship and emotional distress. Their family members share their concern and fear the possibility of being unable to remain together in the same place.

8. I was satisfied that there may have been some confusion regarding the questions and responses about the parties’ siblings during the hearing, so have not placed any weight on that discrepancy. Similarly, I accepted that the sponsor may have forgotten or been confused about who initiated his divorce from his first wife. Consequently, I have not placed any weight on that inconsistency.

9. However, I was not persuaded that the response received after the hearing adequately explains the discrepancies in the evidence regarding the sponsor’s travel to Vietnam with his former wife in 2022, the $560,000 the sponsor borrowed from his former wife in 2023, or the details about the applicant’s three grandchildren. Given the large amount of the loan to the sponsor from his former wife, I would have expected the applicant to have been aware of that transaction in the parties’ joint bank account. Similarly, I would have expected the applicant to be aware that the sponsor spent approximately one week in Vietnam living in the same home as his former wife in 2022, regardless of the purpose of the trip and whether or not they travelled to and from Vietnam on the same flights. I found the response regarding the sponsor’s lack of knowledge about the ages of the applicant’s three grandchildren to be unconvincing. The sponsor was unable to provide even a rough estimate of their ages or educational stages, although he was aware of their genders and the sequence of their birth (girl, girl and then boy). The applicant only has three grandchildren, and they live a relatively short distance away in Western Sydney. The applicant claimed in her response that the sponsor is a father figure to her daughter. However, his lack of knowledge about the applicant’s three grandchildren undermines the applicant’s claim about the closeness of the relationship between the sponsor and the applicant’s daughter. I have placed weight on those discrepancies in the parties’ oral evidence.

10. In addition to the above, I was troubled by the evidence regarding the date and circumstances in which the parties first met. On the application form, the parties stated that they met in Saigon on 30 April 1975. The parties’ oral evidence regarding the circumstances of their meeting was vague and unconvincing. The sponsor said he remembers the date because it was the date that Vietnam was liberated. Despite this date being a pivotal day in Vietnamese history (often referred to as the fall of Saigon), the applicant could not recall any relevant or historical events occurring in Saigon on that day. I was not persuaded that the parties first met on 30 April 1975, as they claimed.

Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship

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

2. ‘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?

1. If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The applicant provided a copy of the parties’ marriage certificate to the Department. It shows that they were married at West Hoxton on 3 June 2018. There was no evidence before me to suggest that the marriage was not valid, and it was not questioned by the delegate. On the available evidence, I accepted that 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

1. The applicant and sponsor are both retired. The sponsor owns homes in both Vietnam and Australia, and a number of investment properties in Australia. He lends money to third parties and receives income from the interest payments. The sponsor has a mortgage with the Commonwealth Bank over one of his investment properties. The parties do not have any joint assets, debts or owe legal obligations to one another.

2. The parties have a joint account with the Commonwealth Bank, which they opened in January 2018. The applicant’s representative provided copies of the statements for that account and the parties’ personal accounts prior to the hearing. The joint account statements show rent from investment properties being deposited into the account and loan repayments being deducted. In addition, large sums of money were deposited into and withdrawn from the parties’ joint account, including $1,641.350.59 on 12 April 2023 following the sale of a property owned by the sponsor. The bank statements show that on the same day that the proceeds of sale were deposited into the joint account, the sponsor transferred $1,640,000 to his personal NetBank Saver Commonwealth Bank account.

3. The joint bank account statements show a repeated pattern of money being deposited into the account and then transferred or withdrawn the same day, or soon afterwards. For example, on 23 and 24 March 2023, Minh Duong deposited a total of $200,000 into the parties’ joint account. On 24 March 2023, $200,000 was transferred to the sponsor’s personal account. On 27 February 2023, a cash cheque of $20,000 was deposited into the parties’ joint account. On 2 May 2023, $18,000 was transferred to the sponsor’s personal account. While the parties’ joint account intermittently shows a large balance, this is usually for a brief period before the money is then transferred to the sponsor’s personal account. When asked about the transfers to and from his account, the sponsor said he prefers to keep the money secure. While I accepted that the funds are more secure in a Netbank Saver account, I consider it significant that the sponsor’s primary savings account is in his sole name rather than in the parties’ joint names. There are no savings of note in the parties’ joint account. It is clear from the statements provided that the parties’ joint account is not used to accumulate common assets.

4. The applicant demonstrated very limited knowledge about the parties’ joint account when asked about various transactions evident from the statements during the hearing. Importantly, she did not know why her sister (the sponsor’s former wife) had transferred

   $560,000 to the parties’ joint account in May 2023. The applicant asserted after the hearing that she had known about the loan but confused the transaction with a gift to the sponsor’s son. I found this explanation unconvincing given the large amount of money involved and the sponsor’s previous marriage relationship with the lender. I was not convinced that this is something the applicant could have forgotten or been confused about if she had been aware of it.

1. The applicant gave oral evidence that she has an ATM card for the parties’ joint account and uses the account for her everyday expenditure. Given her lack of knowledge about the transactions in the parties’ joint account, I was not persuaded that the applicant is using the account as frequently or for the purposes she claimed.

2. I was not satisfied on the available evidence that the parties have pooled their financial resources or shared their day-to-day household expenses. I accepted the parties’ claim that there would have been significant financial penalties for the applicant to be included on the titles of the various properties that the sponsor owns in Australia due to the applicant’s visa status. Nonetheless, the sponsor’s decision to accept a loan from his former wife (the applicant’s sister) to purchase a commercial property in May 2023 indicates that his finances continue to be closely intertwined with those of his former wife.

3. The sponsor claimed in his statutory declaration, dated 11 June 2023, that he and the applicant made full disclosures to each other of their respective financial positions, including their assets, liabilities and financial resources prior to their marriage in 2018. This claim of financial transparency is not supported by the oral evidence at the hearing. If the parties had openly discussed their finances as they claimed, the applicant would have been aware of the loan from her sister (the applicant’s former wife) when questioned about that transaction in the parties’ joint account during the hearing.

4. Overall, I find that the financial aspects of the relationship do not support a finding that the parties are in a genuine and continuing relationship.

   Nature of the household

5. The parties claimed that they have been living together in Australia since May 2018 when the applicant travelled to Australia after being granted a Visitor visa. Initially, they lived at West Hoxton, and since 2020 in a five-bedroom home at Cabramatta. The parties gave consistent oral evidence that the sponsor’s adult daughter, who works as a rehabilitation psychologist, lives in the household. The sponsor’s son lives and works in the Australian defence force in South Australia. The parties gave oral evidence that they share household chores, including cooking, cleaning and gardening. They do not have any joint responsibility for the care and support of children.

6. Correspondence sent to mutual addresses was submitted to support that the parties are cohabiting, including bank statements and tax returns.

7. There was no evidence to contradict the parties’ claims regarding their shared living arrangements. Despite my concerns outlined elsewhere about the parties’ relationship, I accepted on the basis of the evidence before me that they have been living in the same household as claimed since 2018.

   Social aspects of the relationship

8. The parties gave consistent oral evidence that some of their friends and family attended their wedding celebration in 2018, including the sponsor’s two children. The parties both said the applicant’s sister (the sponsor’s former wife) did not attend the wedding because she was still upset by the parties’ relationship, and it would have been embarrassing to have her there. Photographs were provided to confirm the parties’ oral evidence at the hearing about the details of their wedding celebration.

9. The parties told me that they enjoy eating out at restaurants and socialising with friends. Statutory declarations and statements by two friends, Ms Cuu Muoi Phung and Ms Alice Kew, and a statement by the sponsor’s son, Mr Thieu Ban Lieu, were provided to support the application. Ms Kew said in her first statutory declaration, dated 5 August 2018, that she met the parties in 2017, but also that she had known them both for 11 years. The applicant later claimed in her statutory declaration that the date provided by Ms Kew was a typographical error and should have said 2007. In her second statutory declaration, dated 4 June 2023, Ms Kew said she had known the applicant since 2007 and the applicant introduced her to the sponsor. I placed limited weight on the evidence from Ms Kew given the discrepancies in the dates she provided. I was not convinced that the 2017 date was a typographical error as it was referred to more than once.

10. Ms Phung’s statutory declaration, dated 5 August 2018, was written in almost illegible handwriting, is vague and provides limited insight into the parties’ relationship. It is not clear from Ms Phung’s statutory declaration how much contact she has had with the parties. Ms Phung provided a reasonable amount of detail in her second statutory declaration, dated 31 May 2023, and I have placed some weight on that evidence. The brief statements by Ms Kew, Ms Phung and the sponsor’s son provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing are generic and provide limited detail about the nature of the parties’ relationship, social activities or living arrangements. I had regard to the statutory declarations and statements from witnesses. However, those documents do not outweigh the other evidence before me.

11. The parties have travelled together to Vietnam on a number of occasions since their marriage and I accepted that they have socialised with family members whilst there. Photographs provided show them together at various social events with family and friends. I accepted that the parties attended a wedding together in Vietnam in late 2018. The parties have also travelled to South Australia, Canberra, Kiama, and Nowra together since their marriage, as demonstrated by the photographs provided.

12. I accepted that there is some social recognition of the relationship by two friends and the sponsor’s son. There is no independent or reliable evidence to confirm that the applicant’s daughter and/or the sponsor’s daughter are aware of and support the parties’ relationship. This is notable because the parties gave consistent evidence that the sponsor’s daughter lives in their household. I accepted that the sponsor has declared the relationship to the Australian Taxation Office and a solicitor acting on his behalf in relation to real estate investments. There is limited evidence that the parties represent themselves more broadly in the community as being married to each other.

    Nature of the persons’ commitment to each other

13. I accepted that the parties have been married and living in the same household for six years. As discussed above, the parties’ evidence regarding when they first met was unconvincing. During the hearing, the applicant could not recall whether the parties had met in 1974 or 1975, despite them writing the key date of 30 April 1975 on the application form. I do not accept that the parties first met on 30 April 1975 as claimed because the applicant would have undoubtedly remembered the date due to its historical significance.

14. As discussed above, I was not satisfied that the response to a number of the discrepancies in the parties’ oral evidence at the hearing adequately explained those matters. The sponsor was unaware of basic details about the applicant’s family. The applicant’s daughter and grandchildren live in relatively close proximity to the parties, and the applicant confirmed that she has intermittent contact with them. The applicant claimed in her statutory declaration, dated 11 June 2023, that the sponsor loves her daughter dearly, the same way as he loves his own children, and that the sponsor and the applicant’s daughter get alone really well. However, when asked about his contact with the three children of the applicant’s daughter, the sponsor said he has not seen them for between one and two years. He was unable to provide even a vague estimate as to their ages when asked about them during the hearing, for example whether they attend preschool or university.

15. The applicant’s lack of knowledge of the sponsor’s continuing financial intermingling with her sister (the sponsor’s former wife) indicates that the parties do not discuss important financial or personal matters. The applicant was also apparently unaware that the sponsor had spent a week living in the same home as her sister (the sponsor’s former wife) in Vietnam in 2022. The sponsor claimed that this trip was to sign paperwork to finalise a business that he and his former wife owned together. I did not find the explanation regarding the purpose the sponsor’s 2022 trip to Vietnam to be credible in the absence of any independent or reliable evidence.

16. The parties gave consistent oral evidence at the hearing that the applicant’s sister (the sponsor’s former wife) comes to their home on a weekly basis to visit her daughter. They claimed that she is over her initial distress and has come to terms with the parties’ relationship. I considered the parties’ oral evidence regarding their current interactions and relationship with the applicant’s sister (the sponsor’s former wife) to be implausible, particularly in the absence of any independent or reliable evidence from third parties, including the applicant’s sister and/or the sponsor’s daughter.

17. I had regard to the supporting evidence from witnesses regarding the parties’ relationship. That evidence is insufficient to persuade me that the parties are in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship.

18. When asked why neither of the parties’ daughters had attended the hearing to support the application, the parties explained that their daughters were busy with their work and own lives. The parties were advised at the end of the hearing that the Tribunal had concerns about the evidence and they were invited to submit further supporting documents, should they wish to do so. The parties did not provide anything beyond their statutory declarations.

19. Overall, I find that the parties have not displayed the degree of emotional support and companionship which would be expected in a genuine and continuing relationship. They were unaware of significant aspects of each other’s lives. Despite their assertions to the contrary, I was not persuaded that the parties provide one another with companionship or emotional support or see the relationship as long-term. I was not satisfied that the applicant and her sponsor are genuinely committed to each other.

    Conclusions

20. After having regard to the above, I was not satisfied that at the time the visa application was lodged and at the time of this decision the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others. I was not satisfied that the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor is genuine and continuing. I therefore find that the applicant does not meet the requirements of s 5F at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision.

21. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl.820.211(2)(a) and cl.820.221. There is no evidence that the applicant meets any of the alternative subclauses.

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

DECISION

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.

Glynis Bartley 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).