Hassan (Migration) - [2023] AATA 3376

Hassan (Migration) [2023] AATA 3376 (30 August 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Zubair Hassan
VISA APPLICANTS:  Mrs Humaira Kishwar
Miss Ayeza Hassan
Miss Sibgha Hassan
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Adewale Oladejo (MARN: 0316370)
CASE NUMBER:  2007391
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/3312746
MEMBER:T. Quinn
DATE:30 August 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:
·Public Interest Criterion 4020(4) for the purposes of clause 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 30 August 2023 at 4:49pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – false or misleading information and bogus document provided with visa application – date of birth on child’s birth certificate – possible dates of conception do not correspond with sponsor’s return trips – statutory declaration that sponsor’s brother added a year for education purposes – inconsistent explanations and applicants’ awareness – discretion to waive requirements – compassionate or compelling circumstances – sponsor’s physical and mental health and treatment – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 309.211(2), 338(5), 347(2)(b), Schedule 4, criterion 4020(1), (5)
CASES
Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35
Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274
Chand v MIEA (FCA, 7 November 1997)
Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184
Kumar v MIBP [2020] FCAFC 16
MIMA v Rajalingham (1999) 93 FCR 220
Mudiyanselage v MIAC [2012] FMCA 887
Nejad v MIMA [1999] FCA 1827; [2000] FCA 741
Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50
Sein v MIMA (2001) 114 FCR 370
Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALR 347
“T” v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 467
Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42
Vyas v MIMAC [2013] FCCA 1226
Wang v MIMA [2000] FCA 963
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On 1 September 2018, the first named visa applicant (‘the applicant’ or ‘Ms Kishwar’) applied for a Provisional Partner visa[1] (‘the visa’) based on her marriage to the review applicant, Mr Muhammad Zubair Hassan (‘the sponsor’ or ‘Mr Hassan’).[2] The second and third visa applicants are the shared children of the Mr Hassan and Ms Kishwar.
[1] Specifically, a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa.
[2]Pursuant to section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’). At the time of the applicant’s application, Class UF contained only one subclass: Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)). The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 309 visa are set out in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.
On 10 March 2020, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration (‘the delegate’) refused the applicant’s visa application on the basis that the primary applicant did not satisfy the requirement not to produce a bogus document.[3] that at the time of application the applicant and the sponsor were in a spousal relationship as defined by section 5F of the Act (‘the delegate’s decision’).[4] It followed that the applications of the second and third applicants also failed, as they are dependent upon the success of the primary visa applicant’s application.
[3]See clause 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’) which requires that provisional partner visa applicants must satisfy the public interest criterion 4020 (‘PIC 4020’). In this case, the delegate found the applicant provided a bogus document within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Act in her application for the visa. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the applicant’s review application
[4] See clause 309.211(2) of the Regulations.
On 22 April 2020, the sponsor applied for a review of the delegate’s decision with this Tribunal.[5]
[5] Pursuant to sections 338(5) and 347(2)(b) of the Act.
The sponsor was represented in relation to the review.
The sponsor appeared in person and the primary visa applicant appeared via telephone before the Tribunal on 23 August 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. There were three other witnesses ready and prepared to give evidence at hearing. The sponsor’s representative also attended the hearing in person. Ms Kishwar’s evidence was given with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.
This case is remitted for reconsideration. In reaching my decision, I have considered:
a.all evidence given at hearing;
b.all material filed by or on behalf of the applicant and sponsor; and
c.other relevant documents on the Tribunal and Department files.
Not all the evidence and material that has been placed before the Tribunal has been specifically referred to in the reasons set out below. The reasons incorporate reference only to that information found to be fundamental or materially significant to the determination of the issues in the case.[6]
[6]In this regard, please see Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 16 (24 February 2020) at [82] and [96].
STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) as required by clause 309.225 of the Regulations for the grant of the visa. Broadly speaking, this requires that:
·there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority, or Medical officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa or a visa that the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made: PIC 4020(1); and
·the applicant and each member of the family unit has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) during the period starting 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2) and (2AA); and
·the applicant satisfies the Minister as to his or her identity: PIC 4020(2A); and
·neither the applicant nor any family unit member has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2B) and (2BA).
Satisfaction of PIC4020, requires the decision maker to find that there is no evidence before it that the applicant has given, or caused to be give a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to their visa application or a visa the applicant held in the twelve months before the application was made.[7]
[7]PIC 4020(1).
‘False or misleading in a material particular’ means information that is false or misleading at the time it is given and which is relevant to any of the criteria the decision maker may consider when making its decision, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.[8] In contrast, a ‘bogus document’ is a document that the decision maker reasonably suspects is a document that: purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or is counterfeit or has been altered by a person without authority to do so; or was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.[9] A bogus document, therefore, does not have to be a document that is relevant to the criteria to be considered by a decision maker regarding the grant of the visa.[10] This aspect of the PIC4020 provisions operates in an attempt to disincentivise visa applicants from providing bogus documents.
[8]PIC 4020(5). See also Singh v MIAC [2012] FMCA 145 (Driver FM, 24 April 2012) at [68]; Kaur v MIBP [2014] FCCA 1264 (Llyod-jones J, 18 June 2014) at [80]-[81]; Singh v MIBP [2018] FCCA 1136 (Manousaridis J, 9 May 2018); and Khan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 75 at [28] per Moore J.
[9]Section 5(1) of the Act.
[10]Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35; Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274.
While PIC4020 refers to information that is false, in the sense of purposely untrue, it is not necessary for the decision maker to conclude that the visa applicant was aware the information was purposely untrue in order for PIC4020 to be engaged. However, an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary to attract the operation of the provision.[11]
[11]Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42.
The requirements of PIC4020(1) and (2) can be waived if there are compelling or compassionate reasons justifying the granting of the visa.[12] However, this waiver does not apply to identity requirements found in PIC4020(2A) and (2B). PIC4020 is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
[12]PIC 4020(4).
The issues for determination in this case are whether the applicant has given or caused to be given to the Department a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular and, if so, whether there are compassionate or compelling reasons for this public interest criterion to be waived.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in material particular?
The applicant filed a birth certificate for the third applicant indicating she was born [in] November 2017. This date did not align with possible conception dates during Mr Hassan’s return trips to Pakistan.
Initially, Ms Kishwar insisted during her interview with the Department that this was the correct date of birth and stated her husband had returned to Pakistan in early 2017. This was clearly incorrect as there are movement records held by the Department showing that he did not. The sponsor and the first named applicant (‘the applicants’) also provided a handwritten hospital discharge letter from a Dr Misbah dated 31 August 2019 stating that the third applicant was born [in] November 2017 (‘the discharge letter’).
The applicants then filed a statutory declaration sworn by Mr Hassan dated 22 October 2019 stating that the third applicant’s date of birth is actually [November] 2016 and that Mr Hassan’s brother registered her birth and added a year to give her a better start in school.[13] I consider this is the truth of the matter. Unfortunately, the applicants have proceeded to provide inconsistent evidence in an attempt to present as unaware of the error. This is very disappointing. These attempts have included multiple statements from the sponsor, the applicant and the sponsor’s brother stating that this was a clerical mistake by the government in Pakistan and they were not aware of it. They go on to state that when they did become aware of it, they felt it was not an issue and did not make any attempts to correct the error. The time of becoming aware and these statements are not consistent with Ms Kishwar’s answers in her interview with the Department or the statutory declaration or the retrospective discharge letter.
[13]See page 263 of the Department file.
I do no accept that the date of birth on the third applicant’s birth certificate was an innocent mistake or clerical error. I accept the evidence of Mr Hassan of 22 October 2019 wherein he concedes his brother changed the date of birth to give his daughter a better start in school. This is consistent with the evidence he gave at hearing in relation to the priority he places on his children’s education. It is very disheartening to see applicants perjure themselves in this regard as it compromises possible findings in relation to credibility.
The Federal Court has held that it is not necessary for a visa applicant know of, or be directly involved in, any falsehood for PIC 4020 to be engaged.[14] However, an element of fraud or deception is necessary in order to attract the operation of PIC 4020.[15] In that case, Buchanan J states:
it is not necessary… to show knowing complicity by a visa applicant. That would impose an impossible task on those administering the visa system. But it is necessary that the information or document have the necessary quality of purposeful falsity, whether or not the visa applicant can be shown to have knowledge of that fact.[16]
[14]Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 per Buchanan J (Allsop CJ and Rangiah J agreeing).
[15]Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 per Buchanan J (Allsop CJ and Rangiah J agreeing).
[16]Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 per Buchanan J (Allsop CJ and Rangiah J agreeing) at [43].
I consider it likely that Mr Hassan’s brother knowingly added a year to the third applicant’s date of birth when registering her birth certificate. In this regard, I note that it would also have involved waiting over a year from the time of birth before filing the document. I consider the applicants would have been aware that Mr Hassan’s brother was doing this.
The Tribunal Guidelines in relation to assessing credibility dictate that evidence is to be assessed in its entirety, not just in isolated parts.[17] The guidelines also state that Members should focus on what is objectively or reasonably believable in the circumstances. The Tribunal does not need rebutting evidence before it can lawfully find that a particular factual assertion made by an applicant is not made out.[18]
[17]Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, von Doussa, Moore and Sackville JJ, 7 November 1997); Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingham (1999) 93 FCR 220 per Sackville J, with whom North J agreed, at [50]; Sein v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 114 FCR 370
[18]Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALR 347 at 348.
Where evidence is incoherent, vague or lacking the detail or knowledge where greater detail or knowledge might be expected of a person in the applicant’s claimed position, the weight placed on the applicant’s evidence may be limited and the applicant’s credibility may be questioned.[19]
[19]Nejad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1827 per Tamberlin J at [9], upheld on appeal, Nejad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 741; Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 963 per Goldberg J at [20] to [23]; “T” v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 467 per Drummond, Matthews and Mansfield JJ at [27]-[47]
I have considered all of the evidence and submissions before me. Having regard to the information and evidence, I reasonably suspect that the birth certificate of the third applicant filed by the applicants with the Department in their partner visa application was obtained because of a false or misleading statement.[20]
[20]Section 5(1) of the Act.
I find that the applicant has provided a bogus document within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Act.
I find that the applicant does not meet PIC 4020(1).
Has a visa previously been refused on the basis of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1)?
PIC 4020(2) requires I be satisfied that the applicant and each member of the family unit have not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) in the period commencing 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused. This requirement does not apply to a person who was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2AA).
There is no evidence that the applicant or any member of the family unit has been refused a visa in the relevant period.
Therefore, PIC 4020(2) is met.
Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) be waived?
The requirements of PIC 4020(1) and (2) may be waived where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in Regulation 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa. The decision-maker must first be satisfied that there are such circumstances, then must consider whether to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements, having regard to those circumstances.[21]
[21]Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184.
The expressions ‘compelling circumstances’ and ‘compassionate or compelling circumstances’ are not defined for these purposes. To be compelling, the circumstances must force or drive the decision-maker irresistibly to be satisfied.[22] The ordinary meaning of ‘compassionate’ relates to feelings of sympathy, sorrow, pity or concern for others.
[22]Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50.
Guidance on circumstances that may amount to compelling or compassionate circumstances may be found in the Explanatory Statement to SLI 2011, No 13 (‘ES’) which introduced PIC 4020, and the Department’s policy guidelines.[23] While not binding, the Tribunal may have regard to the Department’s interpretation and examples of what may constitute compelling or compassionate circumstances.[24]
[23]Policy – [Sch4 4020] – Public Interest Criterion 4020 – The integrity PIC - Compelling and/or compassionate circumstances (re-issue date 1/1/18).
[24]Mudiyanselage v MIAC [2012] FMCA 887 where the Court noted it was open for the Tribunal to be guided by Department policy
According to the ES it was intended that the granting of the waiver would relate solely to compelling circumstances affecting Australia’s interests, or the compassionate and compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen, not the interests of the visa applicant.[25] The types of circumstances that may involve compelling or compassionate reasons for waiving the requirements of PIC 4020 identified in the ES include:
·family reasons (for example, unexpected serious or fatal family situations over which the applicant had no control, such as the incapacitation or death of a partner or child or another member of the family unit);
·that family members in Australia would be left without financial or emotional support; and
·a parent in Australia would be separated from their child (for example, if the child was removed with their non-resident parent and would therefore be subject to an exclusion period).[26]
[25]ES at 19. The Court in Vyas v MIMAC [2013] FCCA 1226 found the ES to be of assistance in considering the plain words of the waiver provision such that it could not be said that it would be sufficient for the applicants to demonstrate that their circumstances were compelling or compassionate alone, but that there has to be a connection with Australia or an Australian citizen or permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen, because otherwise there would be no utility in having those words in the clause (at [14]).
[26] ES at 19-20.

In addition, the Department’s guidelines suggest that there may be compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia if:
·Australia’s trade or business opportunities would be adversely affected were the person not granted the visa (noting that gaining employer sponsorship is not considered sufficient grounds for a waiver); or
·Australia’s relationship with a foreign government would be damaged were the person not granted the visa; or
·Australia would miss out on a significant benefit that the person could contribute to Australia’s business, economic, cultural or other development (for example, a special skill that is highly sought after in Australia) if the person was not granted the visa.[27]
[27]Policy – [Sch4 4020] – Public Interest Criterion 4020 – The integrity PIC - Compelling and/or compassionate circumstances – Compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia (re-issue date 1/1/18).
The policy states that compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia would not include circumstances where the non-citizen merely claims that, if granted the visa, they would work and pay taxes in Australia, pay fees to an education provider or spend money in Australia.[28]
[28]Policy – [Sch4 4020] – Public Interest Criterion 4020 – The integrity PIC - Compelling and/or compassionate circumstances Compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia (re-issue date 1/1/18).
Compassionate and Compelling circumstances in this case
The sponsor and the applicant married on 8 October 2011 under an arranged marriage, only meeting on the day of their wedding. They gave consistent evidence about this at hearing and have filed a copy of their marriage certificate with the Department.[29]
[29]See page 94 of the Department file.
The sponsor first arrived in Australia shortly before the third applicant’s birth in 2016 on a Skilled Independent SI 189 visa which had been granted in July 2016.
In relation to the third applicant’s birth certificate, I note that the applicants have taken many steps to correct the registered year of birth of their daughter and filed corroborating documents from the Court in Pakistan along with a new passport for the third applicant reflecting the correct date. I commend them in this regard.
The sponsor became an Australian citizen on 9 August 2022. He has explained in evidence that he did not bring his family with him because he could not afford to it. The evidence at hearing was consistent that Mr Hassan had always planned to work and save enough money to bring his family over and support them.
Spousal relationship
Clause 309.211(2) of the Regulations requires a spousal relationship in relation to provisional partner visas. ‘Spouse’ is defined in section 5F of the Act and, inter alia, requires a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, a genuine and continuing relationship, and the couple must live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.[30]
[30] Section 5F(2)(aa)-(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 1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
The applicants gave consistent evidence about the history of their relationship, their financial arrangements, the visits the sponsor has made home to his family, where the sponsor and the applicants live – including details around the applicants’ shared residence with the sponsor’s brother, including the shared use and payment of house help in Pakistan. They answered consistently about the sponsor’s living, work and financial arrangements including his recent purchase of real estate in Australia and even more recent redundancy from his work. They answered consistently about Ms Kishwar’s role as a home maker and mother and their plans for her future, along with the future of their three children, in Australia. The applicants recently had a third child and the sponsor returned to Pakistan in order to be present for the birth. They gave consistent evidence at hearing that they do not plan to have more children.
They gave consistent evidence about the impact the delayed separation has had on the sponsor, Ms Kishwar and their children as well as Mr Hassan’s brother who has remained living – together with his family – with Ms Kishwar in order to secure her safety in Pakistan. They gave consistent evidence that if the applicants move to Australia, Mr Hassan’s brother will move his family closer to his workplace in Pakistan.
The applicants gave consistent evidence with the difficulties Mr Hassan has faced being isolated and separated from his family and the second applicant’s fears for her safety in Pakistan when her father is not present. They gave consistent evidence about why Mr Hassan did not just move back to Pakistan and I consider it is reasonable that he has persisted with his life in Australia, obtained citizenship, and wants to bring his family here.
In relation to questions about the nature of their spousal relationship, I found the applicant and the sponsor’s evidence very persuasive and credible.
The sponsor and second and third applicants, at request of the Tribunal, undertook DNA tests which confirm the sponsor’s paternity of the second and third applicants.
The evidence before me suggests that the applicant and the sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others and that their relationship is genuine and continuing and that they live together, not separately and apart, on a permanent basis.
Compassionate and Compelling reasons – separation of parents and children
As stated above, guidance on circumstances that may amount to compelling or compassionate circumstances may be found in the Explanatory Statement to SLI 2011, No 13 (‘ES’).[31] While not binding, the Tribunal may have regard to the Department’s interpretation and examples of what may constitute compelling or compassionate circumstances.[32]
[31]Policy – [Sch4 4020] – Public Interest Criterion 4020 – The integrity PIC - Compelling and/or compassionate circumstances (re-issue date 1/1/18).
[32]Mudiyanselage v MIAC [2012] FMCA 887 where the Court noted it was open for the Tribunal to be guided by Department policy
In this regard, the ES specifically indicates that one of the types of circumstances that may involve compelling or compassionate reasons for waiving the requirements of PIC 4020 is a parent in Australia being separated from their child.[33]
[33] ES at 19-20.
There is lengthy medical evidence before me about Mr Hassan’s mental health including that he has been severely depressed, anxious and suicidal. He has a history of, and a genetic disposition to, heart problems and the physical, emotional and psychological symptoms of his mental ill health have been very distressing for both Mr Hassan and his wife. He has sought help from a psychologist and provided a corroborating report in this regard. Although his mental health has improved with treatment, he gave evidence at hearing that he thinks that has a lot to do with one of his friends living with him and supporting him when he was in the depths of his loneliness and ill mental health.
The applicants gave consistent evidence, which is supported by documentary evidence in the file, that the second applicant is also exhibiting symptoms of mental ill health, most particularly anxiety around safety, due to separation from her father.
As stated above, the sponsor and second and third applicants have undertaken DNA tests which confirm paternity.
Conclusions on Waiver
Having considered the applicants’ case I am satisfied that, cumulatively, there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen that justify the grant of the visa.
For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should be waived pursuant to PIC 4020(4).
As the decision in relation to the primary visa applicant is remitted, the decisions in relation to the second and third visa applicants must also be remitted. In this regard, I note that the second and third applicants are not working and are financially dependent on their parents.
Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the applications for the visas to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.
DECISION
The appropriate course is for this matter to be remitted for reconsideration by the Department.
The Tribunal remits the applications for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that: the first named visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa: Public Interest Criterion 4020(4) for the purposes of clause 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
T. Quinn
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).