Nguyen (Migration)

[2024] AATA 1161

Nguyen (Migration) [2024] AATA 1161 (2 May 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Long Van Nguyen

VISA APPLICANT:  Mrs Thi Truc Linh Nguyen

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Dao Nguyen (MARN: 1681367)

CASE NUMBER:  1902036

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/2420226

MEMBER:Tegen Downes

DATE:2 May 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa.

Statement made on 02 May 2024 at 4:07pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) – genuine and continuing relationship – validly married in home country – financial, household and social aspects of relationship and nature of commitment – sponsor’s significant financial support – inconsistent evidence about applicant’s work, finances and living arrangements – no corroborating evidence of sponsor’s visits and parties’ travel to other countries – witness statements given little weight – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F(2), 12, 65, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 309.211(2)(a), 309.221(1)(a)
Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), Part VA

CASES
Ally v MIAC [2008] FCAFC 49
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206
Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700
MIEA v Poche (1980) 4 ALD 139

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 25 January 2019 to refuse to grant the visa applicant (the applicant) a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 4 June 2018 on the basis of her relationship with her sponsor, the review applicant (the sponsor). 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).

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy

   
   

   cl 309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied, based on the evidence and information before them, that the applicant was the ‘spouse’ of the sponsor, within the meaning of the Act.

4. The sponsor appeared before the Tribunal on 28 February 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the English and Vietnamese languages.

5. The sponsor was represented in relation to the review. The representative filed written submissions dated 2 February 2024.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   ISSUES AND LAW

7. This review application relates to an offshore application for a provisional partner visa to enable the applicant to come to Australia on a temporary basis.

8. The issue in this review application is whether, at the time the visa application was made, and at the time of this decision, the applicant was and is the spouse of an Australian citizen, for the purposes of cl 309.211(2)(a) and cl 309.221(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

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).

10. 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 relationship, 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.

11. In forming a view of the relationship at the time of application, the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence, which may include evidence of events after the date of application insofar as it assists in the task of determining whether the visa applicant and the sponsor were in a partner relationship at the time of the application. Evidence of events after 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: Ally v MIAC [2008] FCAFC 49 at [32]–[35]; Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700 at [35], citing MIEA v Poche (1980) 4 ALD 139.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Background

12. The applicant is a 33-year-old woman from Vietnam. She claims to be the ‘spouse’ of the sponsor, a 54-year-old Australian citizen who was born in Vietnam. He is once divorced, with one adult son from his first marriage.

13. The couple claim to have met in July 2009 at a coffee shop in Vietnam and to have spent time together during the sponsor’s two-month stay in Vietnam. They claim that after the sponsor returned to Australia, they commenced a long distance relationship. They claim that they have subsequently spent time together on seven occasions, in 2012, 2015, 2016, 2018, twice in 2019 and 2022.

14. Following the hearing, the Tribunal sent a letter to the sponsor pursuant to s 359A of the Act, inviting him to give comments on or respond to the certain information in writing.

15. Relevantly, the letter stated:

    In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to invite you to comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to your comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.

    Please note, however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.

    The particulars of the information are:

    ·     The visa applicant gave evidence to the effect that she has been in paid employment for approximately three months, working eight hours per day, six days per week. This is inconsistent with the evidence you gave, which was to the effect that the visa applicant is unemployed because she has to care for her mother.

    ·     The visa applicant gave evidence to the effect that she lives either at her parents’ house or a house she purchased approximately one year ago, and that she spends approximately two to three days per week living alone at the house that she owns. This is inconsistent with the evidence you gave, which was to the effect that the visa applicant lives with her parents.

    ·     The visa applicant gave evidence to the effect that she used the financial support that you provide to her to purchase the house that she owns. This is inconsistent with the evidence that you gave, which was to the effect that the visa applicant uses your financial support for her normal day-to-day expenses.

    ·     The visa applicant gave evidence to the effect that when you have been together in Vietnam, you have shared expenses. This is inconsistent with the evidence you gave, which was to the effect that you have paid for all expenses when together.

    This information is relevant to the review because it is a requirement under subclause 309.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) that the visa applicant is your ‘spouse’, which means that you are in a ‘married relationship’ as defined in s 5F of the Migration Act.

    The conflicting information before the Tribunal suggests that you and your sponsor do not have a genuine and continuing relationship as it suggests that you are not aware of material information concerning the visa applicant’s life, including her living arrangements and employment.

    If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may find that you and the visa applicant are not in a ‘married relationship’ and affirm the decision to refuse the visa applicant’s Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa.

16. The sponsor provided a translated written statement dated in response to the s 359A letter, as well as other supporting documentation. I address the adverse information and the sponsor’s response later in this decision.

17. I have carefully considered all the material before the Tribunal, including the documentary evidence and the oral evidence given at hearing. On balance, I am not satisfied that, at the material times, the applicant is the ‘spouse’ of the sponsor, within the meaning of the Act.

    Are the parties validly married?

18. The couple submitted a translated marriage certificate from the Socialists Republic of Vietnam certifying that they were married on 29 May 2018 at The People’s Committee of Chau Thanh District, Tien Giang Province, Vietnam.

19. Accordingly, pursuant to Part VA of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) and s 12 of the Act, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the couple 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 married relationship met? / Are the couple in a de facto relationship

    Financial aspects of the relationship

20. The couple do not claim to have any joint assets or joint liabilities, to owe any legal obligations to the other party, to pool their financial resources or to share day-to-day household expenses. I make findings accordingly.

21. There is evidence before the Tribunal that the sponsor provides financial support to the applicant. I address this matter in relation to the nature of the commitment between the couple.

22. I find that, at the material times, the financial aspects of the relationship are not indicative of a married relationship, as defined in the Act. However, I give this little weight in my overall assessment of the relationship because the couple reside in different countries and accordingly, a level of financial independence is to be expected.

    Nature of the household

23. The couple claim that the applicant and the sponsor have spent time together on four occasions since the time of application, being:

    a.Between May and June 2018, during which time the application was made;

    b.In March 2019, during which time the couple spent time in Vietnam and Thailand;

    c.In November 2019, during which time the couple spent time in Vietnam, Singapore, and Malaysia;

    d.Between July and August 2022, during which time the couple spent time in Vietnam.

24. The couple gave evidence at the hearing to the effect that during the sponsor’s visits to Vietnam, they predominately stayed at the applicant’s parents’ house, where the applicant lives with her parents and her younger brother.

25. The couple gave evidence at the hearing to the effect that the applicant mainly did the housework during the sponsor’s visits.

26. No corroborating evidence has been submitted to substantiate the couple’s claims, for example, flight or hotel records for the claimed travel to Singapore, Thailand or Malaysia, or witness statements from family members attesting to the living arrangements.

27. I note that the decision notice also explicitly refers to the absence of evidence to corroborate the couple’s claims of cohabitation. Specifically, it provides:

    You and your sponsor have not provided any evidence regarding the nature of the household… Your sponsor advised in his statutory declaration that during his trip to Vietnam in October 2012, he took you and your family on a holiday to Ha Tien, Chau Doc and after this trip, he took you to Da Lat, Nha Trang, Thay Tim and Gia Lao. No evidence has been provided to show you and your sponsor stayed together during these periods.

28. In the absence of credible corroborating evidence, I find that the couple have not lived together or shared housework in a manner consistent with a married relationship. Any joint responsibility for care and support of children is not applicable. I find that, at the material times, the nature of the household is not indicative of a married relationship, as defined in the Act.

    Social aspects of the relationship

29. There is some evidence before the Tribunal as to the social aspects of the relationship, including photographs of the couple together and statutory declarations and statements from friends and family.

30. Aside from photographs from the couple’s wedding, all of the photographs submitted to the Tribunal are of just the applicant and the sponsor. There are no other photographs of the couple with friends or family. The photographs also do not disclose when and where they were taken. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied that they have been taken across the duration of the couple’s claimed relationship.

31. I note that the delegate’s decision also commented that:

    You and your sponsor submitted a limited number of photographs mostly of yourselves, on your own. The photographs appear to have been taken on only two separate occasions. There is only one photograph showing you and your sponsor with others, apart from the photographs taken at the engagement ceremony.

    From these photographs, I conclude that you and your sponsor have met in person and have spent time in each other’s presence. However, I am not satisfied this evidence demonstrates social recognition by family, friends, and the wider community that is commensurate of a genuine partner relationship. I therefore give them little weight.

32. I agree with the delegate’s reasoning and note that the same problem plagues the photographs submitted to the Tribunal.

33. The applicant and sponsor both gave evidence to the effect that their social activities involve going out for something to eat. The only corroborating evidence submitted to support this claim was one photograph of the couple at a restaurant.

34. The couple also claim to have travelled overseas together however, as noted earlier, no objective corroborating evidence was provided to support this claim and it is not possible to discern if any of the photographs submitted were taken during the couple’s travels.

35. The sponsor submitted two Form 888 - Statutory declaration by a supporting witness in relation to a Partner or Prospective Marriage visa application from a friend and his son. I note that neither declarant has met the applicant in person or spoken to her independently of the sponsor. As they have not directly witnessed the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor, I give their evidence little weight.

36. The applicant submitted witness statements from two of her sisters and her parents. The statements are in similar terms and provide little insight into the couple’s relationship. Accordingly, I give them little weight.

37. On balance, given the absence of credible corroborating evidence, I find that the couple do not represent themselves as being in a married relationship, that the couple’s friends and acquaintances do not believe the relationship between the couple to be genuine and continuing and that the couple do not plan and undertake joint social activities. At the material times, the social aspects of the relationship are not consistent with a married relationship, as defined in the Act.

    Nature of persons’ commitment to each other

38. The couple claim to have been in a relationship for approximately 15 years and married for approximately six years. They claim to have lived together for approximately four months cumulatively since their marriage. However, as noted previously, I have not found that the couple have cohabitated together.

39. The couple submitted more than 3000 pages of chat records dated between April 2021 and January 2024, as well as videocall screenshots from January and February 2024. The chat records are not in English and accordingly, I cannot understand their contents. However, I accept them as evidence that the applicant and the sponsor maintain regular contact. I have given this evidence some weight.

40. The couple also submitted evidence that the sponsor has provided significant financial support to the applicant. I have given this evidence some weight.

41. The applicant and the sponsor gave oral evidence as to the companionship and emotional support that they draw from each other. However, there were material inconsistencies in aspects of the couple’s evidence that cause me to have serious concerns as to the genuineness of the relationship.

42. First, the sponsor gave oral evidence that the applicant uses the financial support that he provides to her for ‘her normal day-to-day expenses’. This is inconsistent with the oral evidence given by the applicant, which was to the following effect:

    Member Downes:      Does your husband provide you with financial support?

    Applicant:                   Yes, he does

    …

    Member Downes:      What do you use that money for?

    Applicant:                    In 2007, I used the money to help my parents but now I use   the money just to buy a piece of land and house for the two of   us.

    Member Downes:      So you have bought some land in Vietnam?

    Applicant:                   Yes, that’s right.

    Member Downes:      Is that where you live?

    Applicant:                   This is just recently I bought so I mainly live where my parents   are at the moment.

    …

    Member Downes:      So tell me about the house that you just bought? … How many   bedrooms is it?

    Applicant:                   Two bedrooms

    Member Downes:      Do you live there by yourself?

    Applicant:Yes, that’s right, but I don’t live there all the time. I live with my parents at the other house.

    Member Downes:      I don’t understand what you mean by that, can you please   explain?

    Applicant:                   I usually live with my parents. The house I just bought it’s only   about one year before. I’m not living there all the time. I   normally live with my parents.

    Member Downes:      How often do you stay at the new house?

    Applicant:                   I just move around, sometimes I’m there around 2 or 3 days a   week.

    Member Downes:      When did you buy the house?

    Applicant:                   It’s over a year now.

    …

43. I gave the sponsor the opportunity to respond to the conflicting evidence provided. He responded by way of a translated statement as follows:

    11. After many years of marriage, I also regularly send money back to Vietnam to my wife, so we have been able to buy properties. Currently, we have the following common real estate properties in Vietnam:

    a. A piece of land at Plot 353, Giap Nuoc Hamlet, Phuoc Thanh Commune, My Tho City, Tien Giang Province with an area of 135 m2 with a Certificate of Land Use Rights issued on August 19, 2022, in the name of my mother-in-law, Nguyen Ngoc Tuoi attached.

    b. A piece of land and house at Plot 1939, Than Binh hamlet, Than Cuu Nghia commune, Chau Thanh district, Tien Giang province with an area of 105.3 m2 with a Certificate of land use rights issued on November 25, 2022, in my wife's name Nguyen Thi True Linh attached.

    …

    16. I know that the AAT has doubts as my wife has said that she used the financial assistance I provided to buy the house she owns, whereas I said that she only used my financial support for her normal daily expenses.

    17. In clarifying the nature of the financial support that I have provided to her, I would like to emphasize that the money I sent back to Vietnam for my wife over the years was not only used to pay for her daily expenses, but also as part of a general savings strategy aimed at purchasing major assets such as land and real estate, as stated in point number 11 above.

    18. This arrangement is a common understanding between us, with the objective of ensuring financial stability and investment in tangible assets in Vietnam. The evidence I have submitted, detailing transactions and transfers to Vietnam over an extended period of time, demonstrates the ability of this money to facilitate the purchase of major assets.

    …

    22.Unfortunately, this aspect of our financial plan and the dual purpose of the support I provided was not communicated as clearly as it should have been during the hearing, leading to misunderstanding of the strategy our finances and intentions.

    …

    During the interview, I felt overwhelmed by anxiety and stress. This is mainly due to the importance I personally place on this process and my sincere desire to ensure everything runs smoothly. My nervousness has unfortunately resulted in me being less clear and coherent than I intended, leading to some unintentional inconsistencies in my answers.

1. I acknowledge that appearing before the Tribunal can be a stressful process. However, I consider the sponsor’s failure to make reference to the couple’s alleged ‘financial plan’ was a material omission. Further, while I accept that there is evidence of significant financial support having been provided by the sponsor to the applicant, I note that there is no direct evidence to support the claim that the sponsor’s financial support was, in fact, used by the applicant to purchase the property (or how it was otherwise used). I give these matters significant weight.

2. Second, the sponsor and the applicant gave inconsistent evidence about the applicant’s living arrangements. The sponsor gave evidence to the effect that the applicant lives with her parents, whereas the applicant gave evidence that she also lives at the property that she purchased, as set out above.

3. I gave the sponsor the opportunity to respond to the conflicting evidence provided. He responded by way of a translated statement as follows:

   12. According to the information we previously provided, Linh permanently resides at 156/6 group 9, Ngai Loi hamlet, Than Cuu Nghia commune, Chau Thanh district, Tien Giang province. This is the house of Linh's biological parents and my wife's family's household registration book at this address is attached.

   13. Before we bought a house at the address Plot 193 9, Than Binh hamlet, Than Cuu N ghia commune, Linh lived here full-time with her parents.

   14. After we bought a house at the address Plot 1939, Than Binh hamlet, Than Cuu Nghia commune, as Linh's parents were old, Linh often stayed at her parents' house at number 156/6, group 9, hamlet Ngai Loi to take care of them. Some days Linh stayed at her parents' house during the day, then at night she came back to our house to sleep and clean the house. On days when there is a party at home or her parents are sick, Linh will stay at her parents' house to take care of them and she comes to our house afterwards to rest.

   15. The time my wife stays at the above two addresses is not fixed and almost no week will be the same as her parents are old and weak and may need her help at any time.

4. The failure of the sponsor to accurately explain the applicant’s living arrangements at the hearing is of significant concern. While he has now explained the applicant’s living arrangements in a manner consistent with the applicant’s evidence, there is a real question before the Tribunal as to whether the sponsor’s earlier failure was the result of inadvertent oversight or him being unaware of the applicant’s circumstances.

5. Third, the sponsor and the applicant gave inconsistent evidence about the applicant’s recent employment history.

6. The sponsor’s evidence was to the following effect:

   Member Downes:      Does your wife work?

   Sponsor:She did work before for a short while but she’s already stopped
   work.

   Member Downes:      What work was she doing?

   Sponsor:  Doing household work

   Member Downes:      Was that for a company or by herself?

   Sponsor:No, it’s only doing household work like doing cooking. Not
   working.

   Member Downes:      Is she currently in paid employment?

   Sponsor:  Not at the present time.

   Member Downes:      When did she stop being in paid employment?

   Sponsor:  She’s only working for 3 months since stopped working.

   Member Downes:      But when?

   Sponsor:  Just recently.

   Member Downes:      Do you know the name of her previous employer?

   Sponsor:  No, I don’t

   Member Downes:      What hours did she previously work?

   Sponsor:  She worked in the morning until late at night.

   Member Downes:      Why did she stop working?

   Sponsor:Because she works at home and that’s kept her busy so she couldn’t continue to work.

   Member Downes:      What is she doing that keeps her busy?

   Sponsor:  She has a mother at home that she needs to care for.

   Member Downes:      Does her mother have some health conditions?

   Sponsor:  She has lots of health problems.

7. The applicant’s evidence was to the following effect:

   Member Downes:      Are you currently working?

   Applicant:                   Yes

   …

   Member Downes:      What type of work do you do?

   Applicant:                   Sewing

   Member Downes:      How long have you been doing that work for?

   Applicant:                   Until now it’s around 3 months

   Member Downes:      Were you doing any work before that?

   Applicant?                  No, I did mostly just do housework and doing some nail works   but not officially

   …

   Member Downes:      How many hours a week do you work?

   Applicant:                   I work 8 hours a day, 6 days a week.

8. I gave the sponsor the opportunity to respond to the conflicting evidence provided. He responded by way of a translated statement as follows:

   1. I know that my wife and I provided inconsistent information regarding my wife's employment status during our appearance.

   2. My wife said she worked for about 3 months, 8 hours a day, 6 days a week. Meanwhile, I said that she doesn't work because she stays home to take care of her mother.

   3. I want to confirm that my wife has been a worker, working at TaeKwang Company in My Tho, Tien Giang, starting from November 10, 2023. In the Relationship statement that my wife wrote on February 2, 2024, my wife also mentioned this information in item number 31.

   4. On February 8, 2024, my wife called her Manager at TaeKwang Company to ask for leave. She did not write a formal resignation letter. Her manager agreed to let her quit, and she promised to have the Company's official contract liquidation letter on March 19, 2024.

   5. On March 5, 2024, my wife received salary for her last working month (February). My wife would like to attach a confirmation message from the bank that she received the amount of VND 2,735,850 with the note "Severance payment for 02/2024".

   6. Please be noted that my wife has been a housewife for more than 10 years, and the above job is the only job she has done in the past 10 years. Most of the time during this time, she stayed home to take care of her elderly parents.

   7. In total, from the time she started working until she quit, my wife worked here for about 2 months and 29 days.

   8.        Regarding Linh's decision to resign, I am completely aware of this.

   9. On February 28, 2024, when asked by the AAT about my wife's job, I replied that she did not work because she stayed at home to take care of her mother. I think after she decided to quit her job on February 8, I can absolutely say that she is not working/unemployed. However, my wife replied that she is still working, because she thinks that only when she receives the official Contract Liquidation Documents on March 19 will she officially quits/becomes unemployed.

   10. For the above reason, we have given different answers to the same question of the AAT.

9. The sponsor provided some additional evidence to corroborate his explanation, including a translated bank transaction showing the resignation payment and a translated appendix of the applicant’s labour contract.

10. I accept that the sponsor has, to an extent, explained the inconsistencies in his and the applicant’s evidence. However, it is also clear to the Tribunal that he had assistance in providing the response because I asked him at the hearing about the name of the applicant’s employer and he said that he did not know. Accordingly, it is open to the Tribunal to find that the sponsor was not aware of the relevant matters at the time of the hearing and only became acquainted with the facts following the hearing.

11. I have carefully considered the evidence given at hearing, the sponsor’s response and the additional documentary evidence provided. Ultimately, I consider that the sponsor has not adequately explained the inconsistencies in the evidence provided at hearing. I consider that the inconsistencies indicate that the sponsor does not have detailed knowledge of the applicant’s personal circumstances, and that there is not an ongoing commitment between the applicant and the sponsor.

12. On balance, on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the couple draws companionship and emotional support from each other commensurate with a married relationship or that they see the relationship as long term. I find that, at the material times, the nature of commitment is not indicative of a married relationship, as defined in the Act.

    Conclusion

13. The strongest evidence to support a finding in the applicant and sponsor’s favour is the chat records and the financial support provided by the sponsor to the applicant. However, this evidence does not outweigh the lack of credible corroborating evidence as to the nature of the couple’s household and the social aspects of the relationship. Further, the inconsistencies in evidence as to the applicant’s living arrangements and her use of the financial support provided are of material concern.

14. On balance, having regard to the findings set out above, I am not satisfied that, at the material times, the couple have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, that the relationship is genuine and continuing and that the couple live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis for the purposes of s 5F(2)(b) to (d) of the Act.

15. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) are met and that, at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision, the couple were and are in a married relationship, as defined in the Act. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl 309.211 and cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

16. For the reasons above, the visa applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa.

    Tegen Downes
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

    1.15ASpouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (ii)      any joint liabilities; and

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

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

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

    (b)the nature of the household, including:

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

    (ii)      the living arrangements of the persons; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (i)       the duration of the relationship; and

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

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

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

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