Hategekimana (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3694

Hategekimana (Migration) [2019] AATA 3694 (27 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Goreti Hategekimana

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Ferdinand Kabura

CASE NUMBER:  1727250

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/2229374

MEMBER:Simone Burford

DATE:27 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

· cl.309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;

· cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 27 June 2019 at 1:11pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) – Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) – genuine spousal relationship – marriage certificate – mutual commitment – credible witness – document and photographic evidence provided – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5CB, 5F, 65, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cls 309.211(2), 309.221, r 1.15A(3)

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 12 September 2017 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 30 June 2016 on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor, 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). 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.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.309.211(2) because the delegate was not satisfied that the visa applicant was the spouse of the sponsor, the review applicant.

4. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant, Mr Ferdinand Kabura, by telephone from Uganda. The Tribunal also took evidence from Mr Shaban Bangiricenge, the review applicant’s brother.

5. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the English and Kirundi languages. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The issue in the present case is whether the visa applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor as defined under s.5F and s.5CB of the Act.

   Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship

8. Clause 309.211(2) and 309.221 require that at the time the visa application was made, and at the time of this decision, the visa 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 visa applicant claims to be the spouse of the review applicant who is an Australian permanent resident.

9. ‘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?

10. If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a spousal relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The parties provided copies of what appear to be two ceremonial marriage certificates dated 19 December 2015 noting the marriage of the parties in Ngozi, Burundi.  They also provided a certified and officially translated copy of a marriage certificate issued by the Republic of Burundi, Ministry of Home Affairs and Patriotic Training, Province of Ngozi, Registrar’s office, dated 21 December 2015 and recording the marriage of the parties on 18 December 2015. The Tribunal has no information to suggest this was not a valid marriage under local law.   On the evidence, the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act as required by s.5F(2)(a).

    Are the other requirements for a spousal relationship met?

11. The Tribunal has before it the delegate’s decision, which was submitted by the review applicant to the Tribunal.  The Tribunal has had regard to detailed written submissions made on behalf of the review applicant by her representative and documentary evidence submitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also has before it the Department’s file relating to the visa applicant.  The Tribunal also has had regard to the material referred to in the delegate’s decision, which was submitted by the review applicant with the application for review, and other material available to it, including material submitted by the review applicant to the Tribunal following the first hearing. 

12. The Tribunal notes that the parties provided additional information to the Tribunal including third-party statutory declarations from friends and family of the parties supporting the relationship and their account of its history and attesting to the ongoing nature of the relationship.

13. The review applicant and the visa applicant both gave evidence at the hearing, the visa applicant via telephone from Uganda.  The Tribunal questioned them at length about their relationship.  The Tribunal took evidence regarding the development of their relationship, their relationship history, knowledge of each other’s background and family history, financial, social and household aspects of their relationship and the nature of their commitment to each other. 

14. The Tribunal found the review applicant and the visa applicant to be generally credible witnesses.  However, the Tribunal had some concerns regarding inconsistencies in the parties’ evidence and some material on the Department file. The basis for these concerns is outlined further below. These concerns were put to the review applicant following the hearing in accordance with s.359A of the Act.

    Relationship background

15. The visa applicant is a 30-year-old citizen of Burundi. He currently resides in Uganda. He has not been previously married and has no children.

16. The review applicant is a 37-year-old Australian permanent resident. She currently resides in Perth, Western Australia. The review applicant was previously married and divorced in 2014. There are five children from this relationship. Four of the review applicant’s children reside with her and one resides with her former husband.

17. The parties claim to have met in a refugee camp in Tanzania when they were young. They is tended the same church in the refugee camp. As noted below the visa applicant claimed this was in 1997 but the review applicant indicated it was in 2004. As the parties were very young in 1997 (approximately eight and 15 years old) the Tribunal accepts that it is likely they met later and that the visa applicant mis-recalls the timeline of those events. At this stage the parties were friends through their families.

18. Whilst living in the refugee camp, the review applicant married her former husband in December 1999. The parties lost contact when the visa applicant and his family moved back to Burundi at the end of 2004.

19. The parties reconnected in 2015 when the review applicant’s brother made a visit to Burundi and reconnected with the visa applicant at a church in Burundi. Through the review applicant’s brother, the parties began communicating regularly from mid-2015, when the review applicant called the visa applicant on the phone number provided by her brother. The parties claimed to have maintained contact two or three times a week. No phone records were provided.

20. The parties indicated that they began discussing marriage and that they started to make plans to marry from mid-2015, and the review applicant travelled to Burundi in December 2015 to meet and marry the visa applicant.

21. Prior to departing, the review applicant said she organised a party with their family to tell her she was travelling to be married. The parties were married in Ngozi in Burundi in December 2015. Around 450 people attended. The review applicant’s father’s family and her mother’s family and friends attended and the visa applicant’s family also attended. Only the review applicant’s brother attended from Australia. Her children did not attend the wedding. The parties stayed for two weeks in a hotel in Burundi and then travelled to Uganda where they rented a house.

22. The parties applied for the partner visa on 30 June 2016. The visa was refused in September 2017.

23. The review applicant travelled to Uganda to stay with the visa applicant in December 2017 for two months. During that visit her brother was married in Burundi and they travelled to Burundi for the wedding. Following the wedding several of the family members came to visit them in Uganda, including the review applicant’s father.

24. The review applicant travelled again to Uganda in September 2018, staying for three weeks with the visa applicant.

25. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence and the circumstances of the parties in reaching its decision.

    Adverse material

26. At the hearing the review applicant and the visa applicant provided inconsistent answers to several questions.  The Tribunal, mindful of its obligations under s.359A of the Act, put this information to the review applicant for her comment or response following the hearing, by letter dated 7 March 2019.

27. The Tribunal put to the review applicant the following information:

    ·The review applicant told the Tribunal that she met the visa applicant in a refugee camp in Tanzania in February 2004. The visa applicant told the Tribunal they met in a refugee camp in Tanzania in 1997.

    ·The review applicant told the Tribunal when she met the visa applicant she was already in a relationship with her former partner. The visa applicant told the Tribunal they were young when they first met and the review applicant did not have a husband at the time.

    ·The review applicant told the Tribunal she lost contact with the visa applicant in 2005 when he returned to Burundi. The visa applicant told the Tribunal he lost contact with the review applicant in 2004 when he returned to Burundi with his family.

    ·The review applicant told the Tribunal she told her family that she was planning to marry the visa applicant in Burundi at a party a few days before she left Australia in December 2015. The visa applicant told the Tribunal that she told her family in Australia in around June 2015 that she was planning to get married.

    ·When the Tribunal asked whether the review applicant needed permission to get married she indicated that she sought permission from her pastor in Australia. She did not mention seeking or obtaining permission from her family to marry. The visa applicant told the Tribunal that he sought the permission of the review applicant’s uncle as a representative of her family in Burundi.

    ·The review applicant indicated that she had signed a lease for the home in which her husband was living in Uganda when she initially stayed there with him in January 2016. The Tribunal asked whether the visa applicant was still living at that address and the review applicant indicated that he was. The lease for that property expired in January 2018. When asked whether she had provided a copy of an updated lease for that she indicated that she had done so and then indicated that she hadn’t brought it with her. The visa applicant told the Tribunal that he moved from the original address in mid-2018 and that he had signed a lease on the new property on his own.

    ·When the review applicant was asked what she was paying in rent for the home in Uganda she claimed to share with the visa applicant she indicated 350,000 Ugandan shillings. The visa applicant told the Tribunal that he had previously been paying 350,000 Ugandan shillings but since moving in mid-2018 he was paying around 200,000 Ugandan shillings.

    ·The review applicant told the Tribunal she had five children from her previous relationship who are living with her in her home in Rivervale. The review applicant told the Tribunal that her child support from her former partner had been reduced because he had re-partnered and had a child with his new partner with whom he was now living. The visa applicant told the Tribunal that the review applicant’s child support had been reduced because one of her children was living with her former partner.

28. The Tribunal explained the relevance of the information, including that it may raise concerns about the credibility of information provided by the parties and concerns about the genuineness of the relationship.

29. The letter also raised a concern regarding documents or information provided to the Department.  The particulars of that information were that:

    ·The visa applicant provided a document to the Department which was a letter to an unidentified “officer” purportedly adding the visa applicant as a beneficiary of the review applicant’s life insurance policy. This letter appears to have been signed by the visa applicant on 10 July 2016. The document is not signed by the review applicant. This document was referred to in submissions from the review applicant’s representative dated 14 May 2018, arguing that the delegate had ignored:

    proof that applicant has nominated her husband to be an owner (and beneficiary) of the life insurance policy. This action by the applicant, it is submitted, is a clear demonstration of her commitment to her relationship with her husband.

    ·At the hearing when the review applicant was asked about why she had not signed the document that was submitted to the Department and what it related to she indicated to the Tribunal that her lawyer at the time had told her she needed to pay for a life insurance policy for her husband and so she did. When asked whether she had a life insurance policy, she said she was not sure but she had given money to her lawyer. She was unable to provide any details about the life insurance policy. She did not provide an explanation as to why the document was unsigned.

30. The Tribunal noted that the relevance of the information was that it would lead the Tribunal to have doubts regarding the parties’ credibility and the truthfulness of the information they have provided to the Department and to the Tribunal. This may be taken into account in assessing the genuineness of their relationship.

31. Further, as the document was provided in relation to the visa application, this information may also lead the Tribunal to find that a bogus document or information that was false or misleading in a material particular was provided in relation to the visa application (Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020(1)). The Tribunal noted that if it relied on this information in making its decision, it may find that the visa applicant does not meet PIC 4020(1) as required for the grant of the visa.

32. The review applicant provided submissions to the Tribunal by a registered migration agent dated 21 March 2019. She also provided additional information including photographs and the statutory declarations from family members. In written submissions, the applicant submitted that the information and inconsistencies related to matters of memory and recollection of events which took place when the visa applicant and review applicant where young and traumatised by events in their country of origin. The submissions note that at this time the parties were living as refugees in Tanzania. The review applicant further submitted that the review applicant has poor English skills and has had to rely on advisers who do not speak her language. Further she has limited education and understanding of migration law and has relied on others for assistance in making the application.

33. In general terms the review applicant submitted that slight differences in the timeline provided by the parties represented honest mistakes or mis-recollections from a period when the parties were very young. With respect to more recent events, the differences arose from misunderstandings of the questions. For example, the visa applicant had said that he had sought permission to marry the review applicant. The review applicant did not regard such permission as necessary and misunderstood the question. The review applicant also indicated that she was confused about the discussion of where the visa applicant lived and confirmed that his evidence was correct. In relation to the child support issue, the review applicant indicated she was confused about the issue. She confirmed that one of her children had moved to stay with her previous partner, but it was not until after his new child was born that the child support was reduced because of the birth of the child.

34. In relation to the provision of the life insurance policy information, the review applicant submitted that she had followed the instructions of her previous registered migration agent that she should take out a policy and put the visa applicant as a beneficiary. She did not understand what was being done. She did not make any further payments and was unable to get a policy document in relation to the insurance. She believed that she had paid money that would result in a benefit to the visa applicant in the event of her death. She had no intention to produce any false or misleading information. Further, it was submitted that the document was not false or bogus within the definition of the Act. Rather, the document was a result of a misguided attempt by a previous advisor to strengthen her application, given that the visa applicant had none of the traditional proofs of relationship.

35. The review applicant submitted further photographs which she submitted evidenced that the parties were relaxed in each other’s company and with their extended family and the wider community. She also submitted statutory declarations from three of her family members.

36. Ultimately, the Tribunal formed the view that although there were inconsistencies in the information provided, these could largely be explained through the passage of time and the circumstances of the parties’ early relationship. With regard to the documents provided to the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that the life insurance document was created for the purpose of strengthening the visa application and does not place any weight on it.

37. The Tribunal has otherwise taken into account the submissions made on behalf of the review applicant in its consideration of the evidence and in reaching its decision.

    Financial aspects

38. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided relating to the financial aspects of the relationship, including joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities, the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments, whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other and the basis of any sharing of the day-to-day household expenses.

1. The parties provided financial information which reflects their financial circumstances. 

2. The parties do not have any significant joint assets or liabilities and there is no evidence that either person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other.

3. The visa applicant is not working. He is currently learning to drive.

4. The review applicant is not working. She is studying.  The review applicant receives government benefits and child support from her former husband. She provides financial assistance to the visa applicant every fortnight. The amount of assistance varies according to his needs. She has been providing assistance since 2015 but could not recall exactly when she commenced providing him with assistance. Some documentary evidence of money transfers was provided.

5. The parties’ oral testimony was consistent with the documentary evidence they provided about their financial arrangements. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

6. The Tribunal notes that the parties reside in separate countries and recognises that this makes the pooling of resources and sharing of day-to-day expenses difficult.  Accordingly, the Tribunal places limited weight on the lack of pooling of resources or sharing of expenses.

   Nature of the household

7. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence as to the nature of the household including joint responsibility for the care and support of children, the parties’ living arrangements and any sharing of the responsibility for housework.

8. The parties have no children together.  The Tribunal notes that the review applicant has five children, four of whom are living with her.  The parties testified that the visa applicant has not met the review applicant’s children in person. However, he has communicated with them. Evidence of text messages between the visa applicant and some of the children was provided. The parties indicated that they are committed to living together as a family and buying a home together in which to live with the children.

9. The parties acknowledge that they had not shared a household for any significant period but that they had shared household responsibilities to a limited extent when they were renting a house in Uganda.  They provided a copy of a lease in both names for a rented property in Uganda in which they stayed together following the wedding. The visa applicant now lives in a new property under a lease in his own name.

10. As the parties have not lived together for longer than weeks at a time, the parties have had limited opportunity to share their living arrangements and have not been able to establish a permanent joint household. Importantly they have not been able to establish a household with the review applicant’s children. However, given their circumstances the Tribunal does not place significant weight on their current lack of a shared household.

    Social aspects of the relationship

11. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided as to whether the parties represented themselves to others as being married to each other, the opinion of their friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship and any basis on which the parties plan and undertake joint social activities.

12. The parties provided supporting material including a number of supporting statements from family and friends.

13. The review applicant’s brother, Mr Bangiricenge, provided a statement and testified at the hearing. He supported the parties’ account of how they met and reconnected in 2014 by his introduction. He recalled having met the visa applicant as far back as 1997 or 1998 in the camp in Tanzania. He attended the wedding in Burundi and travelled to Burundi ahead of the review applicant to help with preparations for the wedding. He attested to having seen the visa applicant again at the end of 2016 when he returned to Burundi to get married himself. He attested to the visa applicant meeting both of the review applicant’s parents at that wedding. He attested to his belief that the relationship is genuine. He indicated that his parents did not attend his sister’s wedding because she would have had to have paid for their flights and was unable to afford that.

14. The parties also submitted statements from Ms Dina Niyokwizigira, the review applicant’s sister, dated 14 March 2019. She testified that the relationship is genuine. She states that she knew the visa applicant from the refugee camp when they were young and attended the same church. She states that she met the visa applicant again in August 2017 in Uganda when she went for a visit and he helped her visit a refugee camp there. She met him again in May 2018 when he again helped her on a visit to Uganda. She states that they would not make false statements in their churches as their father is a pastor and they are a church family who know they must tell the truth. She states she’s in contact with the visa applicant on Facebook and WhatsApp and talks to him on the phone. She says that the visa applicant considers himself to be the father of her sister’s children and the relationship has the family’s support.

15. The parties also submitted a statement from Ms Eliya Ndikumana, the review applicant’s mother, dated 14 March 2019. The statement indicates that she first reconnected with the visa applicant in July 2013 on a return trip to Burundi to visit her family. She states that at this stage there was no relationship between her daughter and the visa applicant. She saw him on several visits in the interim and went to Uganda in December 2016 and spent a week with him before returning to Australia. She indicated that she asked her brother, the review applicant’s uncle, to help the family organise the wedding in Uganda as they could not afford to attend. She indicates that a dowry was paid. Ms Ndikumana indicates that they sent their son ahead of the wedding to help with organisation. She states her belief that the relationship is genuine and that the parties are committed to their future together. The parties provided a copy of the family’s agreement on the dowry, which is dated 15 December 2015.

16. The parties also submitted a statement from Ms Makurata Ntirenganya, the review applicant’s sister, dated 14 March 2019. She attests to meeting the visa applicant in the refugee camp in Tanzania in the 1990s. She supports the parties’ account of their meeting and forming of a relationship. She indicated she was unable to attend the wedding, however, she was involved with others in organising it at the church they usually attend in Burundi. She attested to her belief that the marriage is genuine and the parties are committed to spending their future together. She attested to the fact that the parties have remained in constant contact and that her sister is helping to support the visa applicant financially.

17. The parties provided an undated statement from Pastor Bucumi Thomas who officiated at their wedding attesting to the marriage.

18. The parties also provided a statement from Manirambona Aubin, who was a guest at the wedding and operated as an usher at the wedding. They attested to the fact that their function was attended by 450 people. The parties provided a similar statement from Nizigana Remmy, who states they were the master of ceremonies at the function, and Banyiteranyeko Jean Paul, who was invited to the wedding and purchased food and drinks to be served to the guests. He notes that the budget for the function was large and cost the family a large sum of money.

19. The Tribunal places weight on the third party statements provided in support of the relationship.

20. A number of photographs of the couple together and with others in various settings were provided.

21. The Tribunal finds, based on the supporting documentary evidence and in the context of their particular circumstances, that the parties represent themselves socially in a manner consistent with a genuine and committed married relationship. This is consistent with the way the couple presented at the oral hearing. The Tribunal finds, based on the supporting documentary evidence, that the parties represent themselves socially in such a way as to indicate a genuine married relationship at the time of the application and at the time of this decision.

    Nature of the parties’ commitment

22. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided in relation to the nature of the parties’ commitment to one another including the duration of the relationship, the length of time they have lived together, the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other, and whether they see the relationship as long-term.

23. The parties provided testimony as to their commitment to the relationship and their future plans should the visa be granted. At the hearing the parties displayed a consistent understanding of each other’s lives and a mutual interest in each other.

24. The Tribunal accepts that the parties have not seen each other for an extended period of time. The parties provided some evidence of maintaining communication during that period and third-party statements testified that they have maintained contact. Further, the review applicant has made several trips to Uganda to spend time with the review applicant notwithstanding her family commitments in Australia. They have attended significant family events together in Burundi.

25. The parties’ evidence at the hearing indicated to the Tribunal that they were a committed couple. They testified that they have plans to live together as a family and purchase a home. The visa applicant expressed a commitment to supporting the review applicant and her children.

26. The Tribunal accepts that while the parties have spent limited time living together in the same country the relationship is long-standing. The Tribunal found their evidence at the hearing consistent with an ongoing commitment to the relationship.

27. The Tribunal finds on the evidence that the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other demonstrates a genuine married relationship at the time the application was made and at the time of this decision.

    Spousal relationship findings

28. The Tribunal had some concerns regarding inconsistencies in the parties’ evidence.  However, having considered all the evidence before it and the explanations for those inconsistencies provided to the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of the application and at the time of the decision the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others. The Tribunal is satisfied that the relationship between the parties is genuine and continuing and that they live together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis.

29. Having considered all of the circumstances of the relationship including the evidence relating to the financial and social aspects of the relationship, the nature of the parties’ household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A(3), the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s.5F of the Act are met at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision.

30. Therefore the visa applicant meets cl.309.211(2) and cl.309.221.

31. In reaching its conclusions, the Tribunal observes there is a two-stage process before a permanent visa is granted in the partner migration stream. Therefore, there will be a further assessment of the relationship at the permanent visa stage and the matter of the genuineness of the relationship and commitment of the parties will be considered again, on the facts that exist at that time. 

32. For present application, having regard to the totality of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of the application and time of the decision the visa applicant meets the requirements of s.5F of the Act.

33. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the Subclass 309 visa.

    DECISION

34. The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

    ·cl.309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;

    ·cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Simone Burford
    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).