Mirshamsi (Migration)

[2024] AATA 3827

Mirshamsi (Migration) [2024] AATA 3827 (10 May 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mrs Setareh Mirshamsi

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Nigel Dobbie, Dobbie and Devine Immigration Lawyers Pty Ltd

CASE NUMBER:  1920296

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2015/822739

MEMBER:Michael Ison

DATE:10 May 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets cl 801.221(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations for a Subclass 801 (Partner) visa.

Statement made on 10 May 2024 at 6:17pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 801 (Partner) – genuine and continuing relationship – validly married – financial, household and social aspects of relationship and nature of commitment – statutory declarations, extensive documentation, submissions from representative and supporting statements – length of relationship – joint travel and social activities, sponsor’s travel alone for work, and applicant’s travel and inability to return because of visa conditions – parties’ physical health – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F(2), 65, 360(2)(a)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 15A(2), (3), Schedule 2, cl 801.221(2)(c)

CASE
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 3 July 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

   Background

2. The applicant in this review is Ms Setareh Mirshamsi, who is a 36-year-old national of Iran. Ms Mirshamsi is referred to as the applicant in these reasons for decision.

3. The applicant applied for the visa on 13 March 2015 on the basis of her relationship with her sponsor, Mr Hesamoddin Nourifard, who was born in Iran [and] became an Australian citizen on 16 December 2015.

4. Mr Nourifard, who is 32-years-old, lodged a sponsorship of the applicant in support of her application. Mr Nourifard is referred to as the sponsor in these reasons for decision.

5. At the time the applicant applied for the Partner visa, Class BS contained only one subclass: Subclass 801 (Partner). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 801 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The applicant must satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of the visa.

6. The applicant first arrived in Australia on 8 March 2013 as the holder of a Student (Subclass 573) visa. Since that time the applicant has held the following visas:

   ·13 March 2015 – Bridging A (Subclass 010) visa issued in association with the application for the Partner visa;

   ·30 December 2015 – Bridging B (Subclass 020) visa;

   ·23 August 2020 – Partner (Subclass 820) Provisional visa;

   ·9 January 2023 – Visitor (Subclass 600) visa;

   ·20 January 2023 - Bridging A visa; and

   ·4 May 2023 – Bridging C (Subclass 030) visa.

7. At the time of this decision the applicant continues to hold the Bridging A visa issued to her on 20 January 2023.

   The primary decision

8. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the primary decision.

9. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy cl 801.221(2)(c) because the delegate was not satisfied there was sufficient evidence before the delegate that the applicant and sponsor were in a married relationship at the time of the delegate’s decision.

10. Clause 801.221(2)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations provides:

    (2)      An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

    (a)       the applicant is the holder of a Subclass 820 visa; and

    (b)       the applicant continues to be sponsored for the grant of the Subclass 820 (Partner) visa by:

    (i)        the sponsoring partner; or

    (ii)     the Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen who sponsored the applicant for that visa; and

    (c)       the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner; and

    (d)      subject to subclauses (6A) and (7), at least 2 years have passed since the application was made.

    The applicant’s representative

11. The applicant was represented in this review by Mr Nigel Dobbie of Dobbie and Devine Immigration Lawyers who provided detailed and professionally presented submissions that were of considerable assistance to the Tribunal in the conduct of this review.

    No Tribunal hearing required

12. The Tribunal invited the parties to appear before it to give evidence and present arguments on 24 April 2024. On 17 April 2024 the Tribunal received a submission on behalf of the applicant that caused the Tribunal to decide, subject to the provision of additional information, that a hearing would not be required. Accordingly, the Tribunal cancelled the hearing scheduled for 24 April 2024.

13. On 24 April 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant asking for specific additional information.

14. On 9 and 10 May 2024 the Tribunal received submissions from the applicant.

15. In reaching its decision in this review the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s 360(2)(a) of the Act.

    Tribunal decision

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

17. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant and the sponsor are in a married relationship as that is defined in s 5F(2) of the Act when considering the matters set out in reg 1.15A(2) and (3) as required by cl 801.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations at the time of this decision.

    Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship

18. Relevantly to this matter, cl 801.221(2)(c) requires that at the time of this decision, the applicant is the spouse of the ‘sponsoring partner’, who must be an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen who was specified in the related Subclass 820 visa application as the spouse or de facto partner of the applicant. In the present case the applicant claims to be the spouse of the sponsor who is an Australian citizen and was identified in the Subclass 820 visa application. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor is the ‘sponsoring partner’ of the applicant.

19. ‘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 applicant’s and sponsor’s household and their commitment to each other as set out in reg 1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.

    Are the parties validly married?

20. If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The parties provided a copy of a certificate of marriage stating they were married at the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Sydney, New South Wales on 5 March 2015. The Tribunal accepts this evidence. 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).

    Submissions to the Tribunal

21. The applicant applied to the Tribunal to review the decision to refuse her application for the Subclass 801 Partner visa on 24 July 2019. The applicant submitted a large number of documents with her application for review, including:

    ·A six-page submission from the parties’ then representative, Armour Legal;

    ·Credit card and bank account statements, including for the parties’ joint bank account;

    ·Updated photos;

    ·Transcripts of communication from WhatsApp;

    ·Tenancy agreements from November 2017, May 2018 and May 2019;

    ·Payslips for the sponsor from mid-2018; and

    ·Money transfers sent from the sponsor to the applicant in 2019.

22. On 17 April 2024 the representative sent the Tribunal the following documents:

    ·Statutory declaration of the applicant, declared on 15 April 2024;

    ·Statutory declaration of the sponsor, declared on 17 April 2024;

    ·Statutory declaration of Mr Azadeh Zadravec, declared on 15 April 2024;

    ·Statutory declaration of Mr Anthony Karabetsos, declared on 17 April 2024;

    ·Statutory declaration of Mr Benjamin Tran, declared on 15 April 2024;

    ·Statutory declaration of Mr Hessam Tabatabaee, declared on 16 April 2024;

    ·Statutory declaration of Mrs Mina Beirami, declared on 16 April 2024;

    ·Statutory declaration of Ms Mahtab Fatemeh Bahrami, declared on 10 April 2024;

    ·Statutory declaration of Ms Pegah Penarees, declared on 16 April 2024;

    ·Statutory declaration of Mr Farshad Bajgiran, declared on 10 April 2024; and

    ·22 supporting documents of 191 pages including a current lease agreement, payment of rent ledger, copies of utility bills, tax records, communication records, bank and credit card account statements and copies of photos.

23. The Tribunal sent the applicant a letter on 24 April 2024 asking for updated and additional information from the parties in relation to the application for the visa. On 9 and 10 May 2024, the representative sent the Tribunal the following:

    ·Statutory declaration of the applicant, declared on 8 May 2024;

    ·Original and certified translation into English of an affidavit of the sponsor’s mother, Mrs Kobra Aligholi;

    ·Original and certified translation into English of an affidavit of the applicant’s father, Mr Seyed Ali Mirshamsi;

    ·Original and certified translation into English of an affidavit of the applicant’s mother, Mrs Sara Moghadam;

    Note: in these reasons the Tribunal refers to the above affidavits as the affidavits of the parties parents even though the sponsor’s father has not provided an affidavit.

    ·NSW Health Discharge Referral Notes for the applicant, dated 14 December 2023;

    ·Ultrasound neck results for the applicant, Harbour Radiology, dated 8 June 2023;

    ·Ultrasound biopsy thyroid results for the applicant, Harbour Radiology, dated 14 June 2023;

    ·NSW Health Discharge Summary for the sponsor, dated 27 April 2024;

    ·Emails and letters in relation to the sponsor's loan for the applicant's course, User Experience Design Immersive, at General Assembly;

    ·Enrolment Agreement with General Assembly with the applicant’s digital signature, dated 11 November 2021;

    ·Certificate of completion for the User Experience Design Immersive online course (480 hours) from General Assembly, dated 3 July 2022;

    ·Applicant's passport with Turkish entry wet stamp dated 15 March 2019 and Turkish exit wet stamp dated 19 March 2019 and Indonesian 60-day entry permit dated 2 November 2022;

    ·Airline tickets for the sponsor – 2019 Istanbul to Sydney 2019;

    ·Itinerary for the applicant Bali to Sydney 11 January 2023;

    ·Itinerary for the applicant Iran to Sydney 28 March 2019;

    ·Itinerary for the applicant – Sydney to Indonesia 2 November 2022 with return date 7 November 2022;

    ·Itinerary Melbourne to Bali for R Rahbar and R Schifferle departing 2 November 2022 with return date 6 November 2022;

    ·Itinerary for the applicant and sponsor to Iran 31 December 2015;

    ·No 32 Restaurant information;

    ·Photos related to the sponsor's work overseas;

    ·Applicant's Employment Contract with Nine West commencing 13 November 2015;

    ·Email from David Jones confirming the applicant’s appointment as Assistant Sales Manager, dated 14 May 2018;

    ·Payslip for the applicant from David Jones dated 19 November 2017 to 25 November 2017;

    ·Payslip for the applicant from Ralph Lauren from 24 March 2024 to 6 April 2024;

    ·Payslip for the applicant from Trinity Builders 25 March 2024 to 7 April 2024;

    ·Photo 3 January 2016;

    ·Photo North Sydney citizenship ceremony 16 December 2015; and

    ·43 pages of screen captures of messages between the applicant and sponsor from 22 November 2016 to 29 March 2019 including with explanations in English.

    Background

24. The Tribunal summarises the circumstances of the relationship of the applicant and sponsor from the information and evidence listed above, which the Tribunal accepts save for as noted in the summary, as follows:

    ·The applicant and sponsor met in Sydney in February and again in July 2014 and were married in Sydney on 5 March 2015;

    ·The sponsor’s parents paid, as a wedding gift, for the applicant and sponsor to honeymoon after their wedding on the Gold Coast of Australia, which they did in April 2015;

    ·The sponsor became an Australian citizen on 16 December 2015 at a citizenship ceremony held at North Sydney Council;

    ·The applicant and sponsor travelled to Iran on 31 December 2015 for the wedding of the sponsor’s sister and met each other’s families at a gathering their respective families organised after the wedding;

    ·The applicant returned to Australia on 12 January 2016 and the sponsor returned on 1 February 2016;

    ·On 19 November 2016 the sponsor travelled to Iran to pursue work opportunities as a chef in the Middle East and did not return to Australia until 28 March 2019, almost two and a half years later. The sponsor stayed with his parents in Tehran as his main residence in Iran;

    ·The applicant and sponsor provided detailed information and supporting evidence about why the sponsor moved overseas for his career, why the applicant did not accompany him, the work the sponsor did and how the applicant and sponsor stayed in touch and supported each other during this time including the sponsor sending the applicant money;

    ·At this time, the applicant was working full-time as an Assistant Sales Manager for David Jones;

    ·The sponsor’s twin aunts lived in Sydney by or shortly after this time and supported the applicant;

    ·With the significant devaluation of the Iranian currency diminishing the savings the sponsor had made with a view to setting up a restaurant in Sydney, the sponsor moved from Iran to Turkiye to set up a restaurant known as Celery there;

    ·The applicant and also the sponsor’s parents visited the sponsor in Turkiye in 2019 but the Celery restaurant venture lasted only three months with the applicant returning to Australia, having travelled to Iran for nine days after visiting the sponsor in Turkiye, on 28 March 2019;

    ·As noted above the sponsor returned to Australia on 29 March 2019 and has not departed Australia since;

    ·In April 2019 the applicant became a Sales Manager for Diesel within a different David Jones store;

    ·On 3 July 2019 the applicant’s application for the Partner visa was refused;

    ·In March 2020 the COVID-19 global pandemic emerged;

    ·In December 2020 the sponsor opened, with a business partner, a restaurant in Sydney named ‘No. 32’. The restaurant had its ‘soft opening’ in December 2020 and opened to the public in May 2021 with the sponsor as the head chef, a role he continues to perform;

    ·No. 32 is a “Japanese with Middle Eastern fusion’ restaurant according to the sponsor and has a significant social media profile including a large number of positive online reviews and also some mainstream media coverage;

    ·The sponsor worked long hours at the restaurant and continually experienced staff shortages, which led to the applicant assisting in the restaurant’s front of house operations from time to time;

    ·In 2021 the applicant decided to return to study to pursue a change in career direction towards the digital media industry. The applicant enrolled in a User Experience Design Immersive online course with an education provider called General Assembly, which is part of the Adecco Group, a global recruitment agency;

    ·The sponsor took an AUD[Amount] loan with an associated education credit provider to pay for the applicant’s course;

    ·The applicant completed the course in July 2022;

    ·The education loan for the applicant’s course has been repaid in full;

    ·On 2 November 2022 the applicant flew to Bali, Indonesia to celebrate a close friend’s 30^th birthday, with the sponsor remaining in Sydney due to staff shortages at the restaurant. The applicant intended to be in Bali from Wednesday 2 November 2022 to Monday 7 November 2022;

    ·Even though the applicant checked her travel entitlements with the Department, she was unaware her Bridging B visa did not grant her the right to return to Australia after a certain date and she became ‘stuck’ in Bali;

    ·The applicant being unable to return to Australia placed her at risk of either having to return to Iran or being deported to Iran, something that caused the applicant great anxiety as she had recently participated in protests in Sydney and Canberra against the Iranian government’s treatment of women;

    ·the sponsor had to send the applicant money for her to be able to stay and live in Bali and also engaged an immigration lawyer to assist to bring the applicant back to Australia. The sponsor took out a personal loan at the time to fund supporting the applicant in these ways;

    ·The applicant applied for [and] a Visitor visa, the latter of which was granted to her on 9 January 2023. The applicant returned to Australia on 12 January 2023 and has not departed Australia since. The applicant was in Bali for 71 days;

    ·The applicant and sponsor both found the applicant being ‘stuck’ in Bali a stressful and difficult time. The sponsor could not leave the restaurant for operational and financial reasons to accompany the applicant in Bali. The applicant provided detailed declarations about the efforts the sponsor went to during this time to support the applicant emotionally, financially and logistically, eventually finding a way for the applicant to return to him in Australia;

    ·The applicant bought the sponsor an electric bike to commute to and from the restaurant and on 22 April 2023 the sponsor had an accident whilst riding his bike, causing a closed fracture of the distal end of his radius. The sponsor was admitted to Royal North Shore hospital for surgery on 25 April 2023, the surgery proceeded and was successful on 26 April 2023 and the sponsor was discharged on 27 April 2023 with the applicant taking one month off from work to care for the sponsor and support him in his recovery and rehabilitation;

    ·Shortly afterwards, the applicant noticed swelling in her neck. The applicant underwent an ultrasound on 8 June 2023 which found a large tumour and recommended a biopsy be performed;

    ·On 13 June 2023 the applicant underwent a biopsy procedure and multiple tissue samples were taken and sent for analysis which found the tumour to be benign but the applicant was referred to a specialist who recommended the tumour be removed to prevent it becoming cancerous;

    ·As the applicant did not have health insurance covering the surgery she had to wait until she could have the surgery in a public hospital;

    ·On 13 December 2023 the applicant had a thyroidectomy at Ryde Hospital in Sydney and was discharged on 14 December 2023; and

    ·The applicant currently works part-time as a bookkeeper and maintenance coordinator at Trinity Builders and also part-time as a casual sales assistant for Ralph Lauren. The applicant has not been able to get work in her preferred field of internet website design and internet application design because of the applicant’s status is a temporary (bridging) visa holder.

    Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?

1. To determine whether the parties are in a married relationship as defined by s 5F(2) of the Act, the Tribunal must consider all of the circumstances of their relationship including each of the matters set out in reg 1.15A(3).

   Financial aspects of the relationship – including joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; any joint liabilities; the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments; any legal obligations owed in respect of the other; the basis of any sharing of day-to-day household expenses.

2. The sponsor has taken loans to support the applicant’s education and to have her return to Australia when she was ‘stuck’ in Bali, and they have provided extensive evidence of their financial circumstances since the delegate’s decision.

3. The evidence the parties have provided, including taxation and employment records, indicates the parties work closely to support each other financially and genuinely pool their financial resources as a couple as their circumstances demand, including to support the sponsor’s restaurant, and to pay for all household expenses including rent, bills, socialising and travel.

4. The Tribunal finds that the matters in relation to the financial aspects of the parties’ relationship overall support a finding they are in a married relationship, which the Tribunal gives great weight.

   Nature of the household – including any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; the parties' living arrangements; and any sharing of responsibility for housework.

5. The parties’ do not have any children but have provided evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that they have now cohabited since the sponsor returned to Australia in March 2019.

6. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant does the majority of the housework due to the long hours the sponsor works in his restaurant, but the sponsor contributes and does what he can.

7. The Tribunal finds the evidence before it demonstrates that the parties are living as a married couple in their rented accommodation.

8. The Tribunal finds the matters relevant to the nature of the parties’ household support a finding they are in a married relationship and the Tribunal gives these matters significant weight.

   Social aspects of the relationship – including whether parties represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; the opinion of the parties’ friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities.

9. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the parties’ respective families in Australia and Iran and their apparently tight knit circle of friends are aware of and support their married relationship, viewing it as a genuine long-term union of the applicant and sponsor. The Tribunal accepts that the parties present themselves to other people as a married couple. The parties also provided evidence which the Tribunal accepts of their joint travel and planning and undertaking of social activities since they have both been living back in Sydney since March 2019.

10. The Tribunal finds that the matters in relation to the social aspects of the parties’ relationship overall support a finding they are in a married relationship. The Tribunal gives these matters significant weight.

    Nature of persons' commitment to each other – 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 a long-term one.

11. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the parties have known each other for 10 years and have been married for over nine years. The Tribunal finds the duration of their marriage supports a finding they are in a genuine married relationship.

12. The parties have lived together in Sydney for the past over five years and also lived together for 18 months in 2015 and 2016 prior to the sponsor heading overseas to work. The Tribunal finds the length of time the parties have lived together supports a finding they are in a genuine married relationship.

13. It is clear to the Tribunal that both parties consider their relationship to be a long-term one and this also supports a finding they are in a married relationship.

14. The Tribunal finds the degree of companionship and emotional support the parties draw from each other to be the matters that most powerfully demonstrate to the Tribunal the genuineness of their married relationship. When considering the circumstances of their relationship as set out in paragraph 24 of these reasons, the parties have remained committed to each other despite:

    ·being separated for two and half years not long after their marriage as the sponsor tried to secure a better future for them;

    ·the failure of the sponsor’s time overseas from a financial perspective, they have remained committed to their long-term plans, including the sponsor opening and operating as head chef a popular and successful restaurant in Sydney;

    ·waiting over nine years for a favourable outcome on the applicant’s Partner visa application; and

    ·experiencing times of great additional stress for their relationship including when:

    othe sponsor had to work incredibly hard to establish and open restaurant No. 32 during the COVID-19 global pandemic;

    othe sponsor supported the applicant’s change in career and return to study;

    othe applicant was ‘stuck’ in Bali for 71 days and at risk of either having to return to, or being deported back to, Iran;

    othe sponsor suffered a significant wrist or hand injury that could have impacted his work and career as a chef; and

    othe applicant discovered what turned out to be a benign tumour in her neck which had to be surgically removed to reduce the risk of the tumour becoming malignant.

15. This causes the Tribunal to find that the matters of the degree of companionship and emotional support the parties draw from each other support a finding the parties are in a married relationship and the Tribunal gives these matters great weight.

16. The Tribunal finds that the matters in relation to the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other support a finding they are in a married relationship and the Tribunal gives this finding, in the parties’ circumstances, great weight.

    Any other circumstances of the relationship

17. The Tribunal has not been made aware of any other circumstances of the parties’ relationship.

18. For this reason, the Tribunal finds that the other circumstances of the parties’ relationship are neutral and neither weigh against nor in support of a finding they are in a married relationship.

    Conclusions for the applicant

19. The Tribunal finds that when considering the matters in reg 1.15A(3) and the overall circumstances of the relationship of the applicant and the sponsor that the evidence before the Tribunal supports a finding that the applicant and the sponsor continue to be in a married relationship at the time of this decision.

20. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the applicant and sponsor:

    ·Are married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act (s 5F(2)(a));

    ·Have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others (s 5F(2)(b));

    ·Are in a married relationship that is genuine and continuing (s 5F(2)(c)); and

    ·Do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis (s 5F(2)(d)).

    Other criteria for the grant of the visa

21. The Tribunal also finds that based on the information before it the applicant is the holder of a Subclass 820 Partner visa, continues to be sponsored by the sponsor and at least two years have passed since the applicant was granted the Subclass 820 Partner visa.

    Conclusion

22. Given these findings the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) are met at the time of this decision. Therefore, the applicant meets cl 801.221(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

23. 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 801 visa.

    DECISION

24. The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets cl 801.221(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations for a Subclass 801 (Partner) visa.

    Michael Ison
    Senior Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

    1.15A     Spouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (ii)any joint liabilities; and

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

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

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

    (b)the nature of the household, including:

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

    (ii)the living arrangements of the persons; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (i)the duration of the relationship; and

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

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

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

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