Mourad (Migration)

[2024] AATA 3470

Mourad (Migration) [2024] AATA 3470 (9 September 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Abdul Rahman Mourad

VISA APPLICANT:  Mrs Fatima Al Nachar

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Richard Amhaz (MARN: 1796249)

CASE NUMBER:  2203864

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/3697341

MEMBER:Deputy President Justin Owen

DATE:9 September 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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 09 September 2024 at 9:16am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – genuine and continuing relationship – limited evidence of financial, household and social aspects of relationship – significant financial support and poor banking and financial system in home country – nature of commitment – validly married in home country – living together at review applicant’s family residence in home country and in another country – newborn child – supporting statements – incorrect dates given by representative in application – no necessary element of fraud or deception – compelling circumstances would justify waiver – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F(2), 65, 98, 99, 100
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15A(3), Schedule 2, cls 309.211(2), 309.221, Schedule 4, criterion 4020

CASE
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 1 March 2022 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 25 July 2019 on the basis of her relationship with her 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 they were not satisfied the visa applicant was a spouse or de facto partner of the review applicant at the time of application.  

4. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 August 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant Mrs Fatima Al Nachar.  Both parties appeared via video link from Lebanon.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

5. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review.

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 was in a genuine spousal relationship with the sponsor (the review applicant) at the time of application, as well as at the time of decision.  

   Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship

8. Clause 309.211(2) requires that, at the time the visa application was made, the visa applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. 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 visa applicant must continue to be the spouse or de facto partner at the time of the Tribunal’s decision: cl 309.221. In the present case the visa applicant claims to be the spouse of the review applicant who is an Australian citizen.

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            reg 1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) is effectively a question 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 married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The Tribunal notes a Lebanese marriage certificate dated 2 May 2019 as well as a Lebanese family registration statement dated 6 May 2019 were provided to the delegate.  The Tribunal is satisfied both documents are genuine and the marriage is valid.  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 spouse relationship met?

    Financial aspects of the relationship

11. In respect of the financial aspects of the relationship between the visa applicant and the review applicant, the Tribunal has considered the joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; joint liabilities; the extent of any pooling of financial resources; any legal obligations owed to the other party; and any sharing of day-to-day expenses.

12. The Tribunal finds the visa applicant and the review applicant have no joint ownership of real estate and no joint ownership of major assets. They state they have no joint liabilities. Given their permanent residences are still in separate countries, the Tribunal gives this minimal weight. 

13. In relation to the pooling of financial resources, the review applicant has provided financial support to the visa applicant during their relationship, as necessary.  Between 2019 and 2020 the review applicant provided the visa applicant with significant financial support on 9 separate occasions which speaks to the genuineness of the claimed relationship.  What is of greater weight however is the fact the review applicant has been offshore with the visa applicant for considerable periods of time since their marriage.  At the time of decision in fact, he has been offshore residing with the visa applicant in Lebanon and Turkey since July 2022, a period of over two years.  The review applicant and visa applicant each discussed that the review applicant looks after all financial affairs so there is little “pooling” of financial resources as such.    

14. The Tribunal accepts the review applicant is looking after all the financial aspects of the relationship.  There is no joint bank account, with the review applicant and the visa applicant explaining that the state of the Lebanese banking and financial system meant they were reluctant to establish a joint account together.  The review applicant explained to the Tribunal the decision not to establish a joint bank account on the basis of the failures of the Lebanese banking system and the parties’ concerns after the losses of significant amounts of savings locally. The Tribunal, on the basis of the broader supportive evidence as to the genuineness of their relationship, accepts the claim. 

15. Given the circumstances facing the parties, and the Tribunal’s satisfaction that the parties have essentially resided with each other offshore now for some years, the Tribunal places no adverse weight on the lack of a joint bank account.

16. Whilst the Tribunal finds there is little evidence of the pooling of finances beyond the monies the review applicant previously sent to the visa applicant prior to his most recent departure to Lebanon to reside with the visa applicant, the Tribunal is nevertheless satisfied the parties have financially combined their affairs with the review applicant having essentially full responsibility for their joint financial wellbeing.  

17. In relation to the sharing of day-to-day expenses, the review applicant and visa applicant have stated the review applicant looks after these expenses whilst they live together, with their child, in Lebanon and Turkey, respectively.  Despite the lack of corroborative evidence before it, the Tribunal is nevertheless satisfied that the claim is genuine

18. The Tribunal has considered any legal obligations owed to the other party. The Tribunal finds there is no evidence of any will or superannuation obligations, though given the visa applicant is still to visit Australia, the Tribunal gives this little weight. 

19. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal acknowledges the parties have lived together continually for over two years.  The Tribunal accepts the review applicant, an Australian-born citizen, has been reticent to establish a joint bank account in Lebanon given the existing situation in the country.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties have combined their financial affairs quite simply through the review applicant taking responsibility for all financial matters in their spousal relationship.  The parties live in a residence whilst in Lebanon that belongs to the review applicant’s family. The Tribunal concedes the amount of corroborative evidence supplied by the parties in this review is relatively limited, but the Tribunal considers this speaks more to their circumstances living together in Lebanon and Turkey rather than posing a question about the genuineness of their relationship.  The Tribunal has considered the financial aspects of the relationship and finds it is satisfied that they speak to the genuineness of the relationship between the visa applicant and the review applicant. 

    Nature of the household

20. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the parties’ household, including any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; the parties’ living arrangements; and any sharing of housework.

21. On 28 May 2024, the Tribunal invited the review applicant to undertake DNA evidence in relation to the parties’ son, Master Samer Mourad, to confirm paternity. Master Mourad was born in North Lebanon on 16 April 2024.  DNA samples were taken in Beirut on 20 June 2024. Parentage testing was carried out by DNAQ Paternity & Immigration DNA Testing in Milton, Queensland between 3 July 2024 and 4 July 2024 after bodily samples were taken from the review applicant and Master Mourad in Lebanon through the Australian authorities.  On 8 July 2024 Ms Tahlia Lane of DNAQ reported that the results of the parentage testing procedures demonstrated that the visa applicant was 2,054,260,815 times more likely to produce a child with the required alleles than an unrelated man drawn from the general population. This equated to a relative chance of paternity of 99.999999951321%. On this basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant is the biological father of Master Samer Mourad. The Tribunal also notes the extensive photographs submitted of the review applicant at the birth of Master Mourad with his mother, the visa applicant. 

22. The Tribunal is furthermore satisfied that the review applicant and visa applicant together are taking joint responsibility for the care and support of their young son.  The Tribunal takes into account the photographs, messages, and the consistent oral testimony as to the role both the review applicant and the visa applicant plays in looking after their young son, a role they both play in difficult circumstances offshore. The Tribunal accepts the review applicant, visa applicant, and their young son live are residing together in Lebanon at the review applicant’s family residence as well as in Turkey from time to time.  The Tribunal is satisfied the visa applicant as Mourad Samar’s mother is caring for her son, whilst the review applicant plays a genuine, ongoing and meaningful role in providing care and support. The Tribunal is satisfied there is joint responsibility for the care and support of children.     

23. In relation to their living arrangements, the review applicant discussed how he and the visa applicant have lived together since their 2019 marriage.  This included between November 2019 and January 2020, October 2020 and February 2022; and from July 2022 until the current day. The Tribunal notes the review applicant’s movement records corresponds with these dates.  The Tribunal is satisfied the visa applicant lived with the review applicant in Lebanon between these periods.  During this time, the parties have had a child together and supported each other in difficult circumstances.  The Tribunal is satisfied the review applicant’s oral submissions on the parties’ living arrangements is genuine. The Tribunal has also taken into account the written statements submitted from the local Mayor of Al Oyoun-Akkar, Mr Nazem Assaad Mohamad Al Ibrahim dated 16 August 2024 that attest to the shared household of the review applicant and visa applicant as spouses in the village of Al Oyoun. The Tribunal finds the parties have joint living arrangements whilst both parties are in Lebanon and Turkey, and these joint living arrangements strongly suggest a genuine and ongoing spousal relationship.    

24. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the parties’ household and their living arrangements. The Tribunal notes the corroborative evidence before it is limited, though the parties have provided a range of photographs from a wide range of circumstances and events which the Tribunal accepts are genuine. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the parties’ living arrangements are as they have submitted in Lebanon and Turkey. The Tribunal finds it is furthermore satisfied that the parties intend to establish their own household together in Sydney should the visa applicant be granted a visa where the review applicant will return to his job as a crane operator.   

25. Since the review applicant and visa applicant’s wedding the parties have resided together in Lebanon and Turkey for around four years. They have established their own family. The evidence they have provided about their living circumstances is limited, but the Tribunal places greater weight on the evidence of their young child, plus the evidence of their lives together in Lebanon and Turkey over multiple years.  On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the parties’ household together was how it has been submitted and commensurate with that of a couple in a genuine and ongoing spousal relationship who are in a unique and challenging situation where they have resided in Lebanon and Turkey whilst waiting for the visa applicant’s visa application to be finally determined. The Tribunal considers the nature of the parties household weighs in favour of the visa applicant.      

    Social aspects of the relationship

26. The Tribunal has considered the social aspects of the relationship between the visa applicant and review applicant, including whether they 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 they plan and undertake joint social activities.

27. The review applicant and visa applicant each discussed the background of their relationship and their subsequent marriage.  The parties have provided the Tribunal with a wide range of photographs of themselves together in various destinations around Lebanon and Turkey with friends and family, including with their young son.  These photographs demonstrate, in the Tribunal’s opinion, a couple in a now significantly long-term spousal relationship that has produced a child.     

28. The Tribunal notes the review applicant and visa applicant each stated at its hearing that they prefer to spend their time together with their son.  The Tribunal notes the review applicant’s evidence that his and the visa applicant’s family reside close to each other, and the families purportedly have a familiarity with each other over a significant number of years.    

29. The Tribunal has noted the 888 forms submitted from the review applicant’s sisters and is satisfied the visa applicant and review applicant’s friends and acquaintances view their relationship as a genuine and ongoing spousal relationship. The Tribunal finds the review applicant and visa applicant represent themselves to others as being in a spousal relationship.

30. The Tribunal discussed any basis on which the review applicant and visa applicant plan and undertake joint social activities. The review applicant and visa applicant stated that they preferred each other’s company, and financial hardship had an impact on the ability to socialise more fully The Tribunal has also taken into account the various photographs of the parties together socialising at a wide range of activities in Turkey and Lebanon. The Tribunal finds the parties plan and undertake joint social activities.  

31. The Tribunal is satisfied the parties both represent themselves to other people as being married to each other, and their friends and acquaintances view the spousal relationship as long-term, genuine and continuing. The Tribunal is satisfied that their friends, family and acquaintances view their commitment as a genuine and continuing ongoing spousal relationship. The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties have represented themselves as being in a spousal relationship since 2019, and their child together born earlier this year is demonstrative of this relationship

32. The Tribunal accepts the review applicant’s and visa applicant’s claims as to the social aspects of their relationship. The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties’ relationship is commensurate with that of a couple in a genuine and ongoing long-distance spousal relationship since 2019 and have lived together, in difficult circumstances in Lebanon and Turkey, for a period combined of around 4 years. The Tribunal is ultimately satisfied that the parties represent themselves as being in a spousal relationship.

    Nature of persons’ commitment to each other           

33. The Tribunal has considered the duration of the relationship; the length of time the review applicant and visa applicant have lived together; the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other; and whether they see the relationship as long-term.

34. In relation to the duration of the relationship and the length of time the review applicant and visa applicant have lived together, the Tribunal raised with the parties their application forms and discrepancies in the dates of which the review applicant and visa applicant first commenced their relationship.  The Tribunal noted at its hearing that, as outlined in the delegate’s decision, the parties had claimed they had first met in Lebanon on 5 June 2016 The Tribunal noted departmental records however stated the review applicant was in Australia between 21 November 2013 and 14 October 2016. 

35. The review applicant and visa applicant conceded these dates were incorrect.  The review applicant stated his application had been prepared through a local migration agent in Tripoli.  The review applicant explained that the agent had put the dates in the application, and he had simply signed them. 

36. The Tribunal also raised the issue that the parties had claimed to have become engaged in November 2017.  The Tribunal noted that departmental records stated the review applicant was in Australia between 9 October 2017 and 9 October 2018.  The review applicant again agreed those dates were wrong, noting he had signed then without realising at the time the error. 

1. The Tribunal quizzed the review applicant and the visa applicant about the date of their engagement and their first meeting.  The Tribunal found some of the responses confusing with misunderstandings as to when the parties first met (the review applicant states he was aware of the visa applicant for many years given their families proximity to each other) as well as the date of engagement.

2. The Tribunal notes that the evidence clearly suggests that incorrect information has been provided in the applicant’s Partner visa application, which the Tribunal accepts was information that was provided by the review applicant and visa applicant’s local representative.  This information was “given or provided on the behalf” of the parties.  Whilst the Tribunal is prepared to ultimately accept the review and visa applicant’s claims they were unaware incorrect information in the Partner application had been provided, the Tribunal would note this was still information given or provided by their agent to the Department on the parties’ behalf.  The Tribunal considers s 98 provides a clear and unequivocal guidance: even if the review applicant and visa applicant did not have the knowledge, so long as it was information that was provided on his behalf, that is enough to trigger non-compliance.

3. The Tribunal’s very conventional interpretation of s 99 is further emphasised by s 98 and s 100 of the Act. The Tribunal notes that s 98 of the Act states that a non-citizen who does not fill out their application is taken to have done so if she causes it, or it is filled out on his behalf. In the case of the visa applicant, the review applicant has conceded the information pertaining to when the parties met and their engagement date was incorrect. The Tribunal accepts the visa applicant and review applicant were unaware of the details their agent included in the application, yet that does not obviate the fact incorrect information was filled out on the visa applicant’s behalf.   

4. The Tribunal would furthermore note s 100 of the Act that states “an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.”  The Tribunal accepts the parties, despite signing the application, were unaware incorrect information was provided.  The visa applicant however has caused the answer to be given or provided by her agent to the delegate.

5. This is a challenging issue for the Tribunal.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant and visa applicant are in a genuine spousal relationship at the time of decision.  Their child and their long and ongoing cohabitation together in Lebanon and Turkey, as well as their oral testimony, satisfies the Tribunal their relationship is genuine and ongoing. The Tribunal furthermore notes this is a priority case, and is well aware of the ongoing dangers faced by the review applicant, an Australian citizen, and the visa applicant as they remain offshore.  At the same time, the evidence is the parties have at the very least allowed information to be submitted, even through sheer poor administrative practice, to the delegate that is incorrect.  This potentially triggers Public Interest Criterion 4020 issues. There is obviously an issue of whether the incorrect information contains the necessary element of fraud or deception to trigger PIC 4020. The Tribunal is not confident that it does, considering administrative incompetence is potentially more likely. The Tribunal would consider, even if there were PIC 4020 issues based on the submission of this incorrect information, that these issues would be obviated by the strong likelihood that compelling reasons (that is the child of the relationship; the dangers remaining in Lebanon; and the best interests of the review applicant) would outweigh and justify a waiver of any PIC 4020 issues.  The Tribunal has recorded its observations concerning this conundrum of incorrect information being supplied for the benefit of the delegate.   

6. The Tribunal notes the parties claim to have been in a relationship now since 2018 and married in 2019. They have produced a child together since this time and have cohabitated now for around 4 years, with the review applicant both returning to Australia on several occasions and providing the visa applicant with financial support from Australia.  He has been together with the visa applicant for now more than two years straight.

7. The child of the relationship, a five-month old son, remains the strongest corroborative evidence of the relationship, though the fact the review applicant has spent some four years since their marriage in Lebanon and Turkey with the visa applicant, is strongly suggestive the parties are entirely committed to each other as husband and wife. The Tribunal is very satisfied that the claims that have been made as to the relationship between the parties during this time are genuine. The Tribunal considers this principally on the evidence of their son, as well as the extensive period they have cohabitated in Lebanon and Turkey since their marriage.  The Tribunal accepts this has been particularly disruptive for the review applicant, an Australian citizen, who the Tribunal accepts has prioritised the well-being and providing support to the visa applicant as his most important priority.  The Tribunal is satisfied the review applicant and visa applicant have been in a relationship together since 2018, and in an ongoing genuine spousal relationship since their marriage in 2019.

8. In relation to the duration of time the parties have lived together, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant and visa applicant have lived together for what is a considerable period of time since their marriage in May 2019. These periods: between November 2019 and January 2020, October 2020 and February 2022; and from July 2022 until the current day amount to around 4 years collectively. They have spent the vast majority of the time since their marriage in 2019 together in Lebanon and Turkey. During this time, the parties have established their own family together. The Tribunal places considerable weight on the duration of time the parties have lived together in Lebanon and Turkey since the commencement of the relationship as speaking to its genuineness.     

9. The Tribunal has considered the degree of companionship and emotional support the parties draw from each other, and whether they see the relationship as long-term. The Tribunal accepts the parties are providing each other with companionship and emotional support in an incredibly challenging environment.  The Tribunal accepts that the review applicant and visa applicant enjoy a close and abiding relationship with their young son, and accepts the parties wish to have more children together in the future.  The Tribunal notes that over five years have now elapsed since the marriage and the parties by now have established their own family, a situation that has required the review applicant, as an Australian citizen, to leave his life behind for years and remain with the visa applicant.  The Tribunal notes the concerns as to the dates supplied about the engagement and the commencement of the relationship it has discussed previously, but accepts the evidence suggests there has been a genuine relationship develop and grow between the parties., Again, the Tribunal places considerable weight on the parties young son as evidence of the genuineness of their love and commitment to each other, combined with what the Tribunal would consider a significant personal sacrifice of the review applicant to uproot his life in Australia for so many years to support his wife, the visa applicant.       

10. The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties see the relationship as long-term. The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties are providing companionship and emotional support to each other through commencing a family together and a household they have established in Lebanon (through the review applicant’s family) and in Turkey. The Tribunal is very aware the corroborative evidence of the ongoing spousal relationship in relation to the s 5F requirements is less than ideal.  The Tribunal puts this down ultimately to poor migration advice, and their circumstances in Turkey and Lebanon, rather than a commentary on whether the purported relationship is contrived.  Whatever the situation, the Tribunal has had the benefit of holding a hearing attended by both the review applicant and the visa applicant, as well as receiving DNA evidence as to the child of the parties.  The Tribunal furthermore has established that since the delegate’s refusal, two and half years ago, the review applicant has departed Australia and spent over two years with the visa applicant.  During that time they have had a child together.  The Tribunal has had the benefit of significantly wider, more fulsome and more reliable evidence as to the genuineness of the relationship than the delegate.   

11. The Tribunal, based on the evidence before it including the DNA evidence of the parties’ child together, and the evidence of the visa applicant and review applicant’s residence together in Lebanon and Turkey, is ultimately satisfied the review applicant and visa applicant were in a genuine spousal relationship at the time of application and remain so today. This outweighs the Tribunal’s obvious concerns as to the lack of corroborative evidence supplied by the parties as to the various criteria for the grant of the visa.  Quite simply, the Tribunal, based upon the evidence the review applicant and visa applicant have provided, believes the parties were in a genuine spousal relationship at the time of application, and remain so over five years later.  The Tribunal again notes its concerns as to the incorrect information provided in the application and records it above for the Department’s information and subsequent action if necessary.   

12. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) are met at the time the visa application was made and the time of this decision.

13. Therefore the visa applicant meets cl 309.211 and cl 309.221.

14. 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.

    DECISION

15. 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

    Justin Owen
    Deputy President

    
    

    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).