Kantajan (Migration) - [2024] ARTA 851

Kantajan (Migration) [2024] ARTA 851 (29 October 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicants:Mr Kailerd Kantajan
Mr Chayanut Kantajan
Mr Chayakorn Kantajan
Respondent:  Minister for Home Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2409692

Tribunal:General Member Kate Malyon
Place:Sydney
Date: 29 October 2024
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:
·cl 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and,
·cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

I, General Member Kate Malyon, certify that this is
the Tribunal’s statement of decision and reasons.
Statement made on 29 October 2024 at 9:56 am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – genuine and continuing relationship – mutual money transfers – international visits – support for each other’s children – evidence of communication – partner registration with several authorities – shared business partnership – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 56, 65, 362
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 309.211, 309.221; r 1.15
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
CASES
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206
Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700
Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144
Singh v MIEA [1996] FCA 1429
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 10 April 2024 to refuse to grant the applicants Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The first named visa applicant, Thai national Kailerd Kantajan, applied for the visa on 13 December 2022 on the basis of his relationship with the sponsor, Australian permanent resident Ms Malivan Pongsumran. At that time, Class UF contained only one subclass: Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional). 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.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that Mr Kantajan did not satisfy

cl 309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Whilst accepting that Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran (hereinafter referred to as the couple) are married, the delegate was not satisfied Mr Kantajan had demonstrated that he is the ‘spouse’ of the sponsor as that word is defined in s 5F of the Act. The couple failed to respond to the Department’s multiple s 56 requests for further information sent via their representative. Following refusal of the visa application, the applicants sought review of the delegate’s decision.
Hearing – 2 September 2024
Mr Kantajan appeared before the Tribunal on 2 September 2024 to give evidence and present arguments by way of teleconference given his current location in Thailand. The Tribunal also received oral evidence by way of teleconference from Mr Kantajan’s son, the third named visa applicant Chayakorn Kantajan, as well as Ms Pongsumran’s mother Ms Padsada Pongsumran.In addition, the Tribunal received oral evidence at the in person hearing from Ms Pongsumran and Mr Kantajan’s sister Ms Arphaporn Kanthajan. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the English and Thai languages. All persons appearing before the Tribunal used the services of the interpreter, although Ms Pongsumran and Ms Kanthajan responded in English to some of the Tribunal’s questions. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by registered migration agent Winai Jiamsakul, who also attended the hearing. Without exception, the Tribunal found all persons appearing before it to be credible witnesses. Evidence provided at the hearing is discussed below.
After the hearing, the representative provided a submission addressing the delegate’s reasons for refusing the applicants’ visa together with extensive documentation in support of the review application comprising over 1,100 pages. Helpfully, the representative submitted an index of documentation provided and each of the pages were numbered. The Tribunal notes that some of the documentation had been submitted prior to the hearing. Evidence of any declarant’s signature included in Statutory Declarations submitted was also provided.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. It acknowledges that it has significantly more information than that which was available to the delegate at the time of their decision, in particular, oral evidence at the hearing as well as the extensive indexed and paginated documentation submitted after the hearing.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran were in a genuine spousal relationship both at the time of application and at the time of this decision. Relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations referred to in this decision are set out in the Attachment to the decision.
Are the parties in a spousal or de facto relationship?
Clause 309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations requires that, at the time the visa application was made, Mr Kantajan was the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. With limited exceptions that only apply in relation to a decision to grant or not grant a Subclass 309 visa made on or after 20 August 2022, the primary visa applicant must continue to be the spouse or de facto partner at the time of the Tribunal’s decision: cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. In the present case, Mr Kantajan claims to be the spouse of the sponsor, Australian permanent resident Ms Pongsumran.
The word ‘spouse’ is defined in s 5F of the Act and provides that a person is the spouse of another where the 2 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 also 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) - s 5F(2)(d) of the Act.
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 of the parties’ relationship as well as the nature of the first names visa applicant’s and the sponsor’s household and their commitment to each other as set out in reg 1.15A(3) of the Regulations. These provisions are extracted in the Attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) of the Regulations are effectively questions which must be answered by the decision-maker: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206 at paras [76] – [77]. The Tribunal’s assessment of whether the claimed relationship involves a ‘mutual commitment to a shared life’ requires an assessment of the subjective intentions of the parties: Singh v MIEA [1996] FCA 1429 at [13].
Relevant to its review of the delegate’s refusal of Mr Kantajan’s Subclass 309 visa application, the Tribunal notes the following comments of Middleton J in Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700 at para [35]:
Evidence of events subsequent to the visa application is relevant if it ‘tends logically to show the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the issue to be determined’: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 4 ALD 139 at 160 per Deane J. The Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence, which may include evidence of events subsequent to the date of application insofar as it assists in the task of determining whether the appellant and the sponsor were in a marriage relationship at the time of the application. The question of whether particular evidence is relevant and the weight it is to be given is clearly a matter for the Tribunal.
Further, the Federal Court has accepted in Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144 that people enter marriages with a variety of purposes and motives, hopes and aspirations: it is not necessarily inconsistent with the genuine spousal relationship that a couple’s marriage was entered into by one or both parties with a view to material benefit, such as the hope of becoming eligible to reside in a particular country. As noted by the court, the “true test, we would suggest the only test, is whether at the time the matter has to be decided it can be said that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life of husband-and-wife to the exclusion of others”.
In deciding this matter, the Tribunal has had regard not only to evidence lodged with the Department but also evidence provided to the Tribunal, including oral evidence at the hearing.
Are the parties validly married?
If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship.
The Department’s file contains a copy of the couple’s Marriage Certificate from Thailand, in both the original Thai language as well as a certified English translation thereof. There is nothing to suggest that the couple’s marriage is not valid.
Having regard to the evidence provided, the Tribunal accepts - as did the delegate - that the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of

s 5F(2)(a) of the Act at the time of application and that they continue to be married to each other as at the time of this decision.
Are the other requirements for a spousal relationship met?
The next issue for consideration is whether the parties meet the other requirements of a spousal relationship.
In forming an opinion on the matters required in s 5F(2)(b) - s 5F(2)(d) of the Act, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the claimed relationship. This includes the factors identified in reg 1.15A(3) of the Regulations and any other circumstances relevant to the relationship under reg 1.15A(2) of the Regulations. The factors in reg 1.15A(3) of the Regulations are: the financial aspects of the relationship; the nature of the household; social aspects of the relationship; and, the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other.
The Tribunal has considered evidence in the Department’s file as well as evidence before the Tribunal to determine whether these requirements are met. It notes the Department’s file contains an s 376 Non-Disclosure Certificate issued on 21 August 2024 (the s 376 Certificate). The effect of a s 376 Certificate is that the Tribunal has a discretion to disclose the gist of the information the subject of the certificate where disclosure would not be contrary to either s 362A of the Act or the Privacy Act 1988. In this case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the s 376 Certificate is valid: it has been personally signed by a delegate and the information the subject of the s 376 Certificate was given to the Department in confidence. However, the information the subject of the s 376 Certificate in this case was given to the Department on 18 July 2019 in relation to Ms Pongsumran’s application for permanent residence and it relates to information in her Departmental file No. BCC2015/1184545. Ms Pongsumran was granted permanent residence on 21 January 2020. The applicants’ Department file is No. BCC2022/5381694. In the circumstances, the information the subject of the s 376 Certificate is not relevant to this review and the Tribunal has had no regard to that information.
The Tribunal acknowledges there is a substantial amount of documentary evidence of the couple’s relationship that was not before the delegate. The Tribunal has given this evidence, and oral evidence at the hearings, due regard.
By way of context, the couple know each other from their days attending the same primary school in the Thi Hai Kuang Nai District in Thailand. Their respective families lived in close vicinity to each other. Ms Pongsumran arrived in Australia on 4 October 2009 as the holder of a Subclass 572 Student visa. Subsequently, she met Australian citizen James Brennan who, following her divorce from her first husband in Thailand, sponsored her residence in Australia. She gave birth to Mr Brennan’s son Bensun Pongsumran-Brennan on 18 August 2016 and was granted a Subclass 820 visa on 11 November 2016. Nearly 3 years later, Mr Brennan separated from Ms Pongsumran. Mr Kantajan has 3 sons from his first marriage. He first entered Australia in October 2009 as the holder of a Student Subclass 572 visa with his then wife but, following their return to Thailand on 2 July 2021, he and his first wife divorced as confirmed by the Divorce Certificate in the Department’s file. After Mr Brennan left Ms Pongsumran on 3 September 2019 and, having returned to Thailand on an annual basis since arriving in Australia in October 2009 to catch up with her own family, the couple reconnected online in early 2022 after Mr Kantajan had found out that Ms Pongsumran was living in Australia.
The couple started speaking with each other on a daily basis, talking about their respective families and connecting with each other about solo parenting given Mr Kantajan’s recent divorce and Ms Pongsumran having been separated from her ex-partner Mr Brennan a couple of years beforehand. When Ms Pongsumran returned to Thailand in June 2022, they formally committed to each other and decided to marry. Their wedding ceremony on 22 June 2022 was attended by 30 family members from each of their respective families.
Financial aspects of the relationship: reg 1.15A(3)(a)
When considering the financial aspects of the claimed spousal relationship, the Tribunal is required to have regard to: the joint ownership of assets; and joint liabilities; the extent of pooling of financial resources; and legal obligations owed to the other party; and, sharing of day-to-day household resources.
As noted in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal, Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the financial aspects of their relationship, including evidence of any previous or ongoing pooling of financial resources or sharing of day-to-day household expenses. The delegate was not satisfied, at the time of the decision, that the couple had made any joint purchases, or that they shared any past, current or ongoing financial responsibilities.
There is evidence that the couple opened a joint account with Siam Commercial Bank Plc (last 4 digits # 8829) (the Joint SCB account) in June 2022. Bank statements for the Joint SCB account have been provided for the period from 18 June 2022 to 30 August 2024. As confirmed in the signed statements from each of Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran submitted prior to the hearing, and echoed in their oral evidence at the hearing, the Joint SCB account is used to pay for groceries, petrol for the car, general household items and related expenditure when the couple live together in Thailand, including their hotel bills and restaurant bills. Evidence has also been provided that Ms Pongsumran has sent money to the Joint SCB account on 6 occasions in the period 5 August 2022 to 15 August 2024. Further, evidence has been provided that Mr Kantajan has sent money to Ms Pongsumran’s St George Bank account (last 4 digits #0767) in the period 4 July 2022 to 12 June 2024. The Tribunal accepts the couple’s evidence that they both contribute to day-to-day household expenses when they are living together in Thailand. The Joint SCB account is also used to pay for tuition fees for Mr Kantajan’s 3 sons as confirmed by the receipts provided.
Evidence has been provided that the couple established a partnership in Thailand on 12 June 2024 known as Family Wholesale Partnership Ltd and that Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran are both directors. The partnership is used to operate Mr Kantajan’s grab driving business which transports food and related items for customers. Ms Pongsumran told the Tribunal that she works as a Massage Therapist and sometimes struggles to pay her expenses: hence, Mr Kantajan has periodically sent money to her St George account as confirmed by the bank statements submitted to the Tribunal.
Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal is satisfied that the financial aspects of the relationship of Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran are indicative of a couple in a spousal relationship, both at the time of lodgement of the visa application and at the time of this decision.
Nature of the household arrangements: reg 1.15A(3)(b)
The Tribunal is required to consider the nature of the parties’ household including any joint responsibility for the care and support of children, their living arrangements and any sharing of housework.
Whilst acknowledging that Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran have only spent a limited period of time together since their marriage in June 2022, based on the total absence of any documentary evidence that they had ever lived together or shared a household the delegate concluded that the couple had provided insufficient evidence of their cohabitation.
Prior to the hearing, each of Ms Pongsumran and Mr Kantajan provided the Tribunal with signed statements dated 19 August 2024 setting out in detail the nature of their household during the 3 visits that Ms Pongsumran has made returning to Thailand in the period 17 – 24 June 2022, 22 October – 11 November 2023 and 16 June – 12 July 2024. As explained by Ms Pongsumran during the hearing, her former partner and father of her son Bensun has refused to allow him to obtain an Australian passport and, as such, she can only make short visits to Thailand. Evidence has been provided of Ms Pongsumran’s inability to apply for a passport for her son Bensun to allow him to travel with her in light of his father’s refusal to permit him to leave Australia, even temporarily.
Ms Pongsumran told the Tribunal that, when she is in Thailand ,she lives with her husband at his house in Anamai Ngam Charoen Road, Bangkok. She provided her reissued Thai ID House Registration card effective 22 June 2022 confirming her address at this address. The couple independently confirmed during the hearing that they share housework including washing, cleaning, ironing and rubbish removal when they live together. Each time she has returned to Thailand to be with her husband, the couple also took the opportunity to stay for a short period with Ms Pongsumran’s mother, as confirmed by the statement from her mother Ms Padsada Pongsumran dated 23 August 2024 provided prior to the hearing and reiterated by Ms Padsada Pongsumran in her oral evidence during the hearing itself.
In addition, evidence has been provided of the couple’s support for their respective children. This included oral evidence during the hearing from Mr Kantajan’s son, the second named visa applicant Chayanut Kantajan. He told the Tribunal that he has met Ms Pongsumran on each of the 3 occasions that she has returned to Thailand when she lived with his father at the family’s home in Anamai Ngam Charoen Road, Bangkok. Photographic evidence has also been provided confirming that Ms Pongsumran lived with her husband and his 3 sons during her 3 trips to Thailand and that the couple has visited many well-known tourist sites with Mr Kantajan’s family including his 3 boys. Further, as confirmed by photographs in the WeChat communications provided, Mr Kantajan interacts with Ms Pongsumran’s son Bensun on a regular basis by way of video calls.
Having regard to the evidence provided, including oral evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nature of the couple’s household at the time of application is indicative of a couple in a spousal relationship at the time of lodgement of Mr Kantajan’s Subclass 309 visa application and that this continues to be the case at the time of this decision.
Social aspects of the relationship: reg 1.15A(3)(c)

In its consideration of the social aspects of the parties’ relationship, the Tribunal is required to consider: whether the parties represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; the opinion of friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and, any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities.
The delegate noted that Mr Kantajan had provided 2 witness statements: one from his sister Arphaporn Kanthajan and another from his brother-in-law Alan Alison (Ms Kanthajan’s husband), stating that they had joined the couple’s marriage ceremony in Thailand. The limited amount of evidentiary photographs led the delegate to place less weight on these statements. The delegate concluded that the parties had displayed limited social recognition and did not meet the requirement to demonstrate the social aspects of their relationship.
Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran have submitted extensive photographic evidence of the social aspects of their relationship to the Tribunal. It has also been provided with multiple statements from family members and friends both in Australia and in Thailand confirming the genuineness of the couple’s spousal relationship. This includes oral evidence from Mr Kantajan’s sister Ms Kanthajan at the hearing who attended the couple’s wedding with her husband Alan Alison as well as the many photographs of Ms Kanthajan together with her husband and Ms Pongsumran at their home in Unwin’s Bridge Road, Petersham and dining out in Sydney. Oral evidence confirming the genuineness of the couple’s spousal relationship is also confirmed by the second named visa applicant Chayanut Kantajan during his oral evidence at the hearing. Further, the Tribunal has been provided with a signed statement from Mr Kantajan’s older brother Wichet Khanthachan (in Thai together with a certified copy of an English translation thereof) confirming the genuineness of the couple’s spousal relationship and how they care for the couple’s 4 children. He also confirms that the couple visited him in July 2024 when Ms Pongsumran returned to Thailand to spend time with her husband and his sons.
In addition, as noted above the Tribunal has been provided with evidence of Ms Pongsumran’s registered House Particulars (in Thai together with a certified copy of an English translation thereof) confirming she is now registered with Thai authorities to live at Mr Kantajan’s home in Anamai Ngam Chareon Road effective 22 June 2022. Further, the couple’s spousal relationship has also been declared by Ms Pongsumran to Centrelink as confirmed by the copy of the Partner details form signed by Ms Pongsumran on 1 May 2023 and lodged with Centrelink.
The Tribunal accepts that the parties represent themselves to others as being married to each other. It also accepts that friends and acquaintances as well as family members believe the relationship to be genuine. Further, the Tribunal accepts that the couple plan and undertake joint social activities when they are together in Thailand.
Nature of the persons’ commitment to each other: reg 1.15A(3)(d)
In its consideration of the nature of the persons' commitment to each other the Tribunal is required to consider: the duration of the relationship; the length of time the parties have lived together; the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other; and, whether they see the relationship as long term.
The delegate found that the couple did not provide any convincing information as to how such limited contact and time spent together led to the decision to enter into a serious relationship with the sponsor. Whilst the delegate acknowledged submissions raised in Mr Kantajan’s statement lodged with the Department, the delegate concluded that the rapid development of the relationship, lack of the parties’ physical contact, the absence of social recognition and Mr Kantajan’s limited understanding of Ms Pongsumran’s personal circumstances did not support a finding that the couple are mutually committed to a shared life as husband and wife, to the exclusion of others. There was little evidence with respect to the long-term care and support of the family, and that the couple have been working collaboratively towards meeting their relationship goals and aspirations, including eventually living together as a family with their 4 children in Australia.
As noted above, the Tribunal has been provided with extensive evidence not available to the delegate, in particular, oral evidence at the hearing. It has been just over 2 years since the couple registered their marriage in Bangkok. In that time, Ms Pongsumran has travelled to Thailand on 2 further occasions. She told the Tribunal that, but for the fact that her son Bensun is unable to obtain an Australian passport and accompany her to Thailand, she has had to restrict her trips to a matter of weeks only. During this time, she has also had to find someone to look after her 8-year-old son.
In addition to starting up their partnership referred to above at para [26], the Tribunal notes it has been provided with a copy of the signed Will made by each of Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran dated 11 July 2024 leaving identified assets including balances in nominated bank accounts to their spouse. In relation to the couple’s future plans when they are together in Australia, Ms Pongsumran and Mr Kantajan independently told the Tribunal that they plan to open a Thai restaurant in Sydney.
Based on the extensive evidence provided, the Tribunal accepts the couple’s relationship is long-term and that they rely on each other for companionship and emotional support. The Tribunal is satisfied that the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other is indicative of a couple in a spousal relationship at the time of lodgement of Mr Kantajan’s Subclass 309 visa application and, further, that they continue to be in a spousal relationship at the time of this decision.
Conclusion
Having regard to the decision in Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700 and Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144 referred to above at paras [11] and [12], and based on the evidence provided as to the financial and social aspects of the couple’s relationship as well as the nature of their household arrangements and their strong commitment to each other, the Tribunal is satisfied that, at the time of application, Mr Kantajan and Ms Pongsumran were in a genuine spousal relationship and, at the time of this decision, this continues to be the case. It is also satisfied that the couple do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) of the Act are met at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision.
Therefore, Mr Kantajan meets cl 309.211 and cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.
The applications of the second and third named visa applicants, Mr Kantajan’s 2 sons Chayanut Kantajan and Chayakorn Kantajan, are based on their each being a member of the family unit of a person who meets the primary criteria. Accordingly, their applications will be determined by reference to the outcome of Mr Kantajan’s application on remittal to the Department for reconsideration.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:
·cl 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and,
·cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Kate Malyon

General Member
Date(s) of hearing:  2 September 2024
Representative for the Applicants:         Mr Winai Jiamsakul (MARN: 0321571)
ATTACHMENT - Extracts from Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994
Migration Act 1958
…
5F Spouse
(1)    For the purposes of this Act, a person is the spouse of another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) if, under subsection (2), the 2 persons are in a married relationship.
(2)    For the purposes of subsection (1), persons are in a married relationship if:
(a)     shoot they are married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of this Act; and
(b)    they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others; and
(c)     the relationship between them is genuine and continuing; and
(d)    they:
(i)live together; or
(ii)do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.
(3)    The regulations may make provision in relation to the determination of whether one or more of the conditions in paragraphs (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) exist. The regulations may make different provision in relation to the determination for different purposes whether one or more of those conditions exist.
Note: Section 12 also affects the determination of whether the condition in paragraph (2)(a) of this section exists.

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).
…
Schedule 2 - Subclass 309 -- Partner (Provisional)

309.1--Interpretation

309.111 In this Part:
"intended spouse" means the person referred to in subparagraph 309.211(3)(a)(i), (ii) or (iii).
Note: eligible New Zealand citizen and guardian are defined in regulation 1.03, parent is defined in subsection 5(1) of the Act (also see regulation 1.14A), de facto partner is defined in section 5CB of the Act (also see regulation 1.09A), and spouse is defined in section 5F of the Act (also see regulation 1.15A).
309.2 - Primary criteria
309.21 - Criteria to be satisfied at time of application
309.211 (1) The applicant meets the requirements of subclause (2) or (3).
(2) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) an Australian permanent resident; or
(c) an eligible New Zealand citizen.
(3) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:
(a) the applicant intends to marry:
(i) an Australian citizen; or
(ii) an Australian permanent resident; or
(iii) an eligible New Zealand citizen; and
(b) the intended marriage will, if it takes place, be a valid marriage for the purposes of section 12 of the Act.
Note: If the applicant is an applicant referred to in subclause 309.211(3), the marriage must have taken place before the applicant can be granted a visa of this subclass: see clause 309.224.

309.212 (1) The spouse, de facto partner or intended spouse of the applicant is not prohibited by subclause (2) from being a sponsor.
(2) The spouse, de facto partner or intended spouse is prohibited from being a sponsor if:
(a) the applicant is a male person; and
(b) the spouse, de facto partner or intended spouse is a woman who was granted a Subclass 204 (Woman at Risk) visa within the 5 years immediately preceding the application; and
(c) on the date of grant of that visa:
(i) the applicant was a former spouse or former de facto partner of that woman, having been divorced or permanently separated from that woman; or
(ii) the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of that woman and that relationship had not been declared to Immigration.
309.213 (1) If the applicant is an applicant referred to in subclause 309.211(2), the applicant is sponsored:
(a) if the applicant's spouse or de facto partner has turned 18--by that spouse or de facto partner; or,
(b) if the applicant's spouse has not turned 18--by a parent or guardian of that spouse who:
(i) has turned 18; and
(ii) is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.
(2) If the applicant is an applicant referred to in subclause 309.211(3), the applicant is sponsored:
(a) if the applicant's intended spouse has turned 18--by that intended spouse; or
(b) if the applicant's intended spouse has not turned 18--by a parent or guardian of that intended spouse who:
(i) has turned 18; and
(ii) is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.
…
309.22 - Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision
309.221 The applicant continues to satisfy the criterion in clause 309.211.
309.222 The sponsorship referred to in clause 309.213 has been approved by the Minister and is still in force.
Note: Regulations 1.20J, 1.20KA and 1.20KB limit the Minister's discretion to approve sponsorships.
309.223 In the case of an applicant who meets the requirements of subclause 309.211(2), the applicant continues to be the spouse or de facto partner of the person referred to in paragraph 309.211(2)(a), (b) or (c) who was the applicant's spouse or de facto partner at the time of the application.
309.224 If the applicant is an applicant referred to in subclause 309.211(3), the marriage referred to in that subclause has taken place and the applicant continues to be the spouse of the intended spouse.
309.225 The applicant:
(a) satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4007, 4009, 4020 and 4021 ; and
(b) if the applicant had turned 18 at the time of application -- satisfies public interest criterion 4019.
309.226 If the applicant has previously been in Australia, the applicant satisfies special return criteria 5001 and 5002.
309.228 (1) Each member of the family unit of the applicant who is an applicant for a Subclass 309 visa is a person who:
(a) satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4007, 4009 and 4020; and
(aa) if the person had turned 18 at the time of application, satisfies public interest criterion 4019; and
(b) if the person has previously been in Australia, satisfies special return criteria 5001 and 5002.
(2) Each member of the family unit of the applicant who is not an applicant for a Subclass 309 visa is a person who:
(a) satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003 and 4004; and
(b) satisfies public interest criterion 4007, unless the Minister is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the person to undergo assessment in relation to that criterion.
309.229 If a person (in this clause called the additional applicant):
(a) is a member of the family unit of the applicant; and
(b) has not turned 18; and
(c) made a combined application with the applicant-- public interest criteria 4015 and 4016 are satisfied in relation to the additional applicant.
oOOo