HANNA (Migration)

[2021] AATA 4937

HANNA (Migration) [2021] AATA 4937 (18 November 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs SUZANNE HANNA

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr SUNIL KUMAR

CASE NUMBER:  1820427

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3712591 BCC2018/4105351

MEMBER:Mila Foster

DATE:18 November 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 18 November 2021 at 5:09pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa - subclass 309 – lack of commitment on the part of the review applicant – review applicant is not committed to a shared life with the visa applicant as a married couple – visa applicant is not review applicant’s spouse at the time of decision –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5F, 65, 376
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.15, Schedule 2, cls 309.211, 309.223

CASES
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 25 May 2018 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 7 November 2016 on the basis of his spouse relationship with the review applicant. At that time, Class UF contained only one subclass: Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Clause 309.211(2) and cl 309.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations require that at the time the visa application was made the visa applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen, and continues to be the spouse or de facto partner of that person at the time of decision.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl 309.211 and 309.223 because the delegate was not satisfied the visa applicant and review applicant shared a genuine, mutual commitment to a shared future together as husband and wife, to the exclusion of all others.

4. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal via video on 9 September 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence by telephone from the visa applicant.

5. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review by her lawyer, Nigel Dobbie. Her lawyer attended the Tribunal hearing.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the parties were in a spouse relationship at the time of application. The issue on review is whether at the time of the Tribunal’s decision the parties were in a spouse relationship, in particular, whether the review applicant is committed to a shared life with the visa applicant as a married couple. The Tribunal has concluded that the review applicant does not have such a commitment and hence that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   Background and summary of relationship

7. The visa applicant claims to be a 34-year-old Indian national and resident. The review applicant claims to be a 40-year-old dual citizen of Australia and Lebanon and that she is a resident of Australia.

8. The applicant claims he lived in India from birth until he came to Australia on 13 August 2009 on a student visa and that he continued to live in Australia until he returned to India on 28 September 2016. 

9. The parties claim they met in Liverpool (in NSW) on 6 May 2011, they committed to a shared life to the exclusion of all others when they became engaged on 19 July 2012, and married in Granville (in NSW) on 30 December 2012.

10. On 3 June 2013 the visa applicant applied for a Partner visa while onshore on the basis of the parties’ relationship. He was refused the visa because he did not have a substantive visa at the time of application and did not meet Schedule 3 criteria. The Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed the refusal on review. After unsuccessfully seeking Ministerial intervention, the visa applicant had to return to India where he made the current visa application.

11. The visa applicant claims his immediate family consist of his widowed father, sister and brother all of whom live in India. The review applicant’s immediate family members consist of her widowed mother and brother, both of whom reside in Australia.

    The evidence before the Tribunal

12. There is a considerable amount of evidence before the Tribunal in this case. The Tribunal is not required to refer to every item of evidence before it in its decision and has not done so. However, the Tribunal has considered all the evidence before it and will refer to the evidence upon which the decision is made.

13. The evidence consists of electronic copies of two Department files,[1] a written submission made on review by the review applicant’s lawyer,[2] documentary evidence submitted on review,[3] the oral evidence the parties gave at the hearing, oral submissions made by the lawyer at the hearing, and Department movement records.[4]

    Department files

    [1] Department file numbers BCC2016/3712591 and BCC2018/4105351. 

    [2] Dated 2 September 2021.

    [3] The documentary evidence was submitted as three PDF attachments to emails sent to the Tribunal on 2 September 2021. The attachments were titled SD1, SD2 and SD3. SD1 includes copies of the documentary evidence submitted in support of the visa application.

    [4] The Tribunal has had regard to the visa applicant’s movement record for the purpose of confirming his movements and migration history.

14. The Department file numbered BCC2016/3712591 contains a copy of an invitation sent to the visa applicant on 2 February 2018. The applicant was invited to comment on information obtained by two officers from the Department who visited his home in India on 27 November 2017. The information arose from conversations the officers had with the visa applicant’s sister-in-law, two of his neighbours, and the owner of a nearby shop. The Department file contains the visa applicant’s detailed response to the invitation.[5]

    [5] Dated 28 February 2018.

15. The Department file numbered BCC2018/4105351, contains what purports to be a non-disclosure certificate and notification issued under s 376 of the Act. The certificate and notification states that disclosure of the documents/information at folios 244 and 245 of the file numbered BCC2016/3712591 would be contrary to the public interest because (they are the) ‘Complete site visit report’ and that disclosure of the documents/information at folios 291 and 392 would be contrary to the public interest because (they would) ‘prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of the law’. As the last folio on the file numbered BCC2016/3712591 is folio 264, it would appear that folios 291 and 392 referred to in the certificate and notification are those folios on the file numbered BCC2018/4105351. ‘Complete site visit report’ would not form a basis for a claim of public interest immunity and it is not apparent how the documents at folios 291 and 392 could ‘prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of the law’.

16. The certificate and notification s 376 is also said to apply to the same folios but of on a file numbered BCC2015/3176102 because the documents/information in those folios were given to the Minister or an officer of the Department in confidence. A file of that number is not before the Tribunal. The Tribunal assumes that this is also an error and that these are the same folios referred to above on files BCC2016/3712591 and BCC2018/4105351. Assuming that is the case it is not apparent that the documents or information at those folios were given in confidence. The Tribunal therefore does not regard the certificate and notification as valid.

17. Further, the information in the folios largely relates to the site visit that occurred on 17 November 2017 and the assessment of the parties’ relationship at the time of application. The essence of the information from the site visit was disclosed to the visa applicant in the invitation he was sent and the decision record which the review applicant submitted on review. Similarly, the assessment of the parties’ relationship was referred to in the delegate’s decision record. The Tribunal has had regard to the information however the issue on review is not the social recognition of the parties’ marriage by people in India or their relationship at the time of application but, as stated above, the review applicant’s commitment at the time of decision. Hence, the Tribunal has not put this information to the review applicant.

    Supporting documents

18. The supporting documents received on review include but are not limited to the following:

    a.Undeclared ‘statutory declaration’ made by the visa applicant in connection with his visa application.[6]

    [6] As this was not declared before a qualified person, the Tribunal will hereafter refer to it as a written statement.

    b.Statutory declaration made by the review applicant on 26 October 2016.

    c.Written statements made by review applicant and visa applicant on 31 August 2021.

    d.Copies of the parties’ marriage certificate.

    e.Correspondence relating to the review applicant’s pregnancy and miscarriage in February 2016.

    f.Hundreds of pages of screenshots of phone calls and WhatsApp messages made between the parties from April 2016 to August 2021.

    g.Photocopies of cards the parties sent to each other.

    h.Photographs of the parties’ engagement and wedding, the parties together in various settings, and parcels containing gifts such as clothing sent by the review applicant to the visa applicant in India.

    i.Statutory declarations and written statements made by members of the visa applicant’s family in India and several his friends in Australia regarding the parties’ marriage and relationship.

    j.Statutory declaration made by the review applicant’s mother on 22 September 2016 in support of the visa applicant’s visa application.

    k.Bank statements for a joint bank account in the parties’ name for the periods from 2 November 2012 to 10 January 2013, and from 8 April 2016 to 30 August 2016.

    l.Rental agreement for a property in Drummond Street, Warwick Farm and correspondence relating to a rental property in Hart Street, Warwick Farm.

    m.Receipts for various purchases, mainly for furniture and jewellery purchased in 2014.

    n.Letter dated 11 April 2016 from AustralianSuper to the visa applicant confirming he had nominated the review applicant as the beneficiary of his superannuation account.

    o.Money transfer made on 4 November 2019.

    Tribunal hearing

19. As the Tribunal hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by video. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the review applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by video. The Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

20. The review applicant was present when the visa applicant gave his evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal found the visa applicant a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a forthright manner and it was consistent with the written and documentary evidence. The Tribunal found the review applicant less than forthright in some respects and that aspects of her oral evidence was not credible in light of other evidence presented on review.  

21. The review applicant had requested that the Tribunal take oral evidence from several of the visa applicant’s family and friends. After taking oral evidence from the review applicant and visa applicant, the Tribunal decided not to do so. The Tribunal had before it written statements from all but one of the potential witnesses, Simranjit Singh who is said to have witnessed the parties’ marriage. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicant’s family and friends interacted with the parties as claimed in their written evidence and their opinions about the parties’ relationship. The Tribunal accepts on the basis of the parties’ marriage certificate, that Simranjit Singh witnessed their marriage. As the written statements indicate that the review applicant’s communication with the visa applicant’s family has been limited, and the review applicant stated at the hearing that she has had no interaction of any substance with the visa applicant’s friends since he returned to India, the Tribunal formed the view that there was no additional relevant evidence the visa applicant’s family and friends could provide on the issue in the review, that is, the review applicant’s commitment.

    Whether the visa applicant is the spouse of the review applicant

22. ‘Spouse’ is defined in s.5F of the Act and provides that a person is the spouse of another where the two persons are in a married relationship. Persons in a married relationship must be married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act, there must be a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship must be genuine and continuing, and the couple must live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis: s.5F(2)(a)-(d). In forming an opinion about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the visa applicant’s and review applicant’s household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in r.1.15A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered: He v MIBP[2017] FCAFC 206.

    Are the parties validly married?

23. According to the parties’ marriage certificate they were married on 30 December 2012 and their marriage was registered in NSW. The parties claim that neither was previously married. On the evidence, the Tribunal finds 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) at the time of application and at the time of decision.

    Financial aspects of the relationship

24. The review applicant’s lawyer submitted in writing and at the hearing that the parties are not wealthy but there is evidence of the parties’ pooling their financial resources and sharing day to day household expenses prior to the visa applicant’s departure from Australia.

25. Based on the documentary and oral evidence given at the hearing the Tribunal accepts the parties’ claim that they lived together as a couple after they married. The Tribunal accepts that they lived in Drummond Street, Warwick Farm from their marriage until 24 May 2014 when they moved to an address in Hart Street, Warwick Farm. At the hearing the review applicant stated that after her father died (on 10 January 2016) she went to reside with her mother because she is her mother’s carer and her mother could not live alone. The Tribunal has no reason to doubt that and accepts this is true.

26. There is documentary evidence and hence the Tribunal accepts that the parties had a joint bank account. The bank statements indicate that the visa applicant was the sole contributor to the account. There is documentary evidence and the Tribunal accepts that the parties purchased items for their home and shared day to day household expenses when they lived together. However, as the visa applicant has not lived in Australia for 5 years the parties no longer share day-to-day household expenses. Further, according to the parties’ oral evidence the joint account is no longer in use.

27. There is documentary evidence and the Tribunal accepts that the parties purchased gifts for each other when the visa applicant was in Australia. The documentary evidence indicates and the Tribunal accepts that since the visa applicant has returned to India the review applicant has posted him gifts. 

28. The parties do not claim that they currently have any joint assets or joint liabilities or are pooling their financial resources. The review applicant is the beneficiary of the visa applicant’s Australian superannuation which the parties acknowledged at the hearing is of minimal financial value. It is not claimed that either party owes any legal obligation to the other.

29. Overall then, at the time of decision, the financial aspects of the parties’ relationship are not significant and not a strong indicator that they are in a spouse relationship. However, given the parties have been living in two different countries for 5 years, the Tribunal has not drawn an adverse inference from this aspect of their relationship at the time of decision.

    Nature of the household

30. The parties do not have children nor joint responsibility for the care and support of any children.

31. While the Tribunal has accepted that the parties lived together in Australia for about 4 years, they have not had a household together since the visa applicant had to leave Australia in September 2016. The parties claim that the visa applicant wanted the review applicant to visit him in India but she was unable to do so because she is her mother’s carer.  The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the review applicant felt unable to visit the visa applicant in India for that reason. Hence, at the time of decision the parties have not lived together or shared housework for a considerable period of time. However, as that is because they have been residing in different countries and the review applicant has not been able to visit the visa applicant, the Tribunal has not drawn an adverse inference from this aspect of their relationship at the time of decision.

    Social aspects of the relationship

32. There is written, oral and photographic evidence which indicates that when the visa applicant was in Australia the parties planned and undertook joint social activities. The evidence indicates that their social activities were almost exclusively undertaken by the parties alone or with the visa applicant’s friends.

33. There is considerable evidence that the visa applicant has and continues to represent himself to close members of his family and many friends as being married to the visa applicant. The evidence includes recent statutory declarations and written statements from his father, siblings, siblings’ spouses as well as friends who attended the parties’ wedding and socialised with them. His family and friends have attested to their belief that the relationship was genuine, and were willing to provide oral evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal thus finds that the visa applicant continues to represent himself as being married to the review applicant, the parties had undertaken social activities together when he was in Australia and socialised with his friends. Further, the Tribunal accepts that his family and friends view the relationship as a genuine and continuing one. This is a strong indicator of the visa applicant’s commitment to a shared life with the review applicant as a married couple.

34. There is evidence that in the past the review applicant represented herself to her parents and brother as being married to the visa applicant. The supporting evidence includes cards from the review applicant’s parents and brother congratulating the parties on their engagement and wedding, and a statutory declaration made by the review applicant’s mother on 22 September 2016. In the statutory declaration, the review applicant’s mother states that the parties were married, the visa applicant was a good husband who cared about the review applicant, and that she believed the relationship was a genuine and continuing spousal relationship. In the written statement the visa applicant submitted in support of his visa application, he said he helped the review applicant’s parents by taking her mother to medical appointments, shopping, lawn mowing and carwashing.[7] The review applicant confirmed this in the statutory declaration she made on 26 October 2016.[8]  However, at the hearing the parties stated that the review applicant’s parents and brother did not attend their engagement or wedding. The review applicant said that was because they did not accept the visa applicant. The visa applicant said that initially the review applicant’s family did not accept him ‘due to the culture’ but that subsequently changed. The Tribunal questioned the review applicant about her evidence that her family did not accept the visa applicant given the engagement and wedding cards they had provided and her mother’s statutory declaration. The review applicant replied that she asked her family to help her, so they helped by providing the cards and her mother made the statutory declaration for her because her mother only has her.

    [7] At [8].

    [8] At [8]

1. It seems unlikely to the Tribunal that the review applicant’s family would provide congratulatory engagement and wedding cards to help the review applicant if they did not accept the visa applicant when that, in effect, meant they were helping the visa applicant obtain a visa on the basis of his marriage to the review applicant. The Tribunal finds it especially hard to believe the review applicant’s mother would have provided the statutory declaration if she did not accept the visa applicant. The statutory declaration was made using the Form 888 which is specifically for a person making a statutory declaration as a supporting witness in relation to a partner or prospective marriage visa application. Hence, the review applicant’s mother could have been in no doubt she was helping the visa applicant. Secondly, not only had the review applicant’s mother stated in her statutory declaration that she believed the parties’ relationship was genuine but also that the visa applicant cared for her (the review applicant’s mother) a lot, and that he and the review applicant came to help her every day and always kept in contact with her. This is consistent with the statement the visa applicant made in the written statement he submitted in support of his visa application that the review applicant’s parents were a very nice couple and he loved them a lot.[9] The Tribunal thus does not consider the review applicant’s oral evidence about her family’s attitude towards the visa applicant credible. The Tribunal prefers the oral evidence of the visa applicant, and the documentary and written evidence from the review applicant’s family. The Tribunal thus finds on the evidence before it that in the past the review applicant has represented herself to her family as being married to the visa applicant, her family came to accept the visa applicant even though they had not done so initially, there was considerable interaction between the parties and her parents when the visa applicant was in Australia, and her mother regarded the relationship as a genuine and continuing one.

   [9] At [9].

2. There is however no recent evidence before the Tribunal from the review applicant’s family to indicate that she continues to represent herself to them as being married to the visa applicant or about their current opinion of the parties’ relationship. In the absence of such evidence and given the other evidence the review applicant gave at the hearing, which is referred to below in relation to her commitment to the relationship, the Tribunal has doubts about whether the review applicant has continued to represent herself to her family as being married to the visa applicant.

3. The extent to which the review applicant had represented herself to her friends as being married to the visa applicant is less than clear. She indicated at the hearing that some friends ‘did not agree’ (with the marriage or relationship) which indicates some were aware of the marriage. However, the review applicant was clear that not only did none of her friends attend the parties’ engagement or wedding, the parties had never socialised with any of her friends. She was also clear in her evidence that her friends did not know the visa applicant, she did not want to talk to her friends about the marriage and that the parties had not socialised with her friends because she did not want to involve her friends in her relationship with the visa applicant. In the Tribunal’s view, the review applicant’s desire to keep the visa applicant and her relationship with him apart from her friends is not indicative of a commitment on her part to a shared life with the visa applicant as her husband.

   Nature of persons' commitment to each other

4. The parties committed to a shared life and were married more than 9 years ago. They lived together for about 4 years when the visa applicant was in Australia. These are significant periods of time. However, the evidence the review applicant gave at the hearing indicates that she does not, despite suggesting the contrary, have a commitment to a continuing relationship and shared life with the visa applicant as her husband.

5. There is considerable evidence before the Tribunal including written statements made by the parties, many photographs and hundreds of pages of WhatsApp messages to indicate the companionship and emotional support the parties have drawn from each other at times over the course of their relationship. Nevertheless, the parties experienced some problems especially after the visa applicant returned to India and in April 2020 he wanted to divorce. However, in light of the visa applicant’s oral evidence about what led him to want a divorce and why he changed his mind, and given his general credibility the Tribunal is satisfied that he had a genuine change of heart and that at the time of decision he had a genuine commitment to the review applicant. The Tribunal accepts that relationships can have there ups and downs and especially where there is a lengthy separation. The Tribunal has thus not drawn an adverse inference from the mere fact the parties have had relationship difficulties.

6. However, at the hearing the review applicant indicated she was dissatisfied with the degree of emotional support and communication from the visa applicant and questioned his commitment to the relationship. She indicated that she did not feel supported when the visa applicant’s family stopped contacting her because she could not go to India. She had referred to the visa applicant’s parents not talking to her in her written statement of 31 August 2021 although in her written statement she said she did not mind and tried to forget about it.[10] After hearing the visa applicant’s oral evidence during which he became tearful, the review applicant stated that he had not demonstrated that emotion to her. Yet in her written statement she referred to the applicant feeling anxious and crying about a motorcycle accident in which he broke his leg.[11] Asked if she was committed to a shared life as a married couple, the review applicant responded that the parties were married and doing the partner visa. This did not appear a direct response. Asked again, she responded that she did not feel that there was that kind of commitment from the visa applicant but she was open.

   [10] At [2].

   [11] At [3].

7. Not only did the review applicant state at the hearing that she had not involved her friends in her relationship with the visa applicant when he was in Australia, she indicated she had no intention of involving her friends in the relationship in the future. Further, she said the only people she may involve in the relationship in the future if the visa applicant was granted a visa would be her mother and perhaps her brother if she got on with her brother. In the Tribunal’s view this is not indicative of a commitment to a shared life as a married couple.

8. Asked where the parties would live if the visa applicant was granted the visa, the review applicant stated that she had no idea because her mother did not accept him, would not accept him living with them and she could not leave her mother. Not only does this contrast with what the review applicant said in the written statement she made less than two weeks before the hearing that the visa applicant would live with her when he came to Australia[12] but it indicates a lack of commitment to the visa applicant. The review applicant has had many years to consider the future with the visa applicant and consider what their living arrangements would be if he was granted the visa particularly if her circumstances with her mother are as she claims. Further, in the written statement also made less than two weeks before the hearing, the visa applicant stated that if he was permitted to return to Australia he would be moving into the home the review applicant and her mother shared. That the review applicant would state at the hearing that she had no idea where her husband would live and in effect that they would not be living together given he expected to live with her also suggests a lack of commitment on the part of the review applicant.

   [12] At [4].

9. Even accounting for the fact that each marriage is unique and that the nature and degree of each party’s commitment to a marriage can vary, in the Tribunal’s view, the review applicant’s oral evidence about her future plans is not indicative of a commitment to a shared life with the visa applicant as a married couple. An email the Tribunal received from the review applicant after the hearing on 20 September 2021 only confirms this view.

   Any other circumstances of the relationship

10. There are no other circumstances of the relationship not already considered above.

    Conclusions

11. Having regard to the claims and evidence, and the above considerations and findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of decision the visa applicant is committed to a shared life with the review applicant as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, views the relationship as genuine and continuing, and that he believes they are living separately and apart on a temporary basis. However, the commitment must be mutual. In assessing the review applicant’s commitment, the Tribunal has given greatest weight to the social aspects of the parties’ relationship and the nature of the review applicant’s commitment to the visa applicant which leads the Tribunal to conclude that at the time of decision the review applicant is not committed to a shared life with the visa applicant as a married couple. The Tribunal thus finds that the parties do not have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others at the time of this decision and hence the requirements of s.5F(2) are not met. Therefore, even if the visa applicant was the spouse of the review applicant at the time of application, he is not her spouse at the time of decision and does not meet the time of decision criterion in cl 309.223. Consequently, the visa applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa and the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

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

    Mila Foster
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

    1.15ASpouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (ii)      any joint liabilities; and

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

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

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

    (b)the nature of the household, including:

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

    (ii)      the living arrangements of the persons; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (i)       the duration of the relationship; and

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

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

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

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