Sawmhal (Migration)

[2021] AATA 5014

Sawmhal (Migration) [2021] AATA 5014 (8 November 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Biak Lian Bawi Sawmhal

VISA APPLICANT:  Ms Ave

CASE NUMBER:  1817555

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OSF2013/005754

MEMBER:Michael Ison

DATE:8 November 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and

·cl.309.221of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 08 November 2021 at 10:38am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – genuine and continuing relationship – validly married – child born of the relationship – support for the sponsor caring for newborn child – money transfers – awareness of living arrangements – decision under review remitted  

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.15A; Schedule 2, cls 309.211, 309.221

CASES
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 Immigration on 19 April 2018 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   Background

2. The visa applicant is Ms Ave who is 26 years old and is a national of Myanmar. Ms Ave is referred to as the visa applicant in these reasons for decision.

3. The review applicant is Mr Biak Lian Bawi Sawmhal who is 28 years old, is a national of Myanmar and is an Australian Permanent resident who currently holds a Five-Year Resident Return (Class BB) (Subclass 155) visa. Mr Sawmhal is referred to as the review applicant in these reasons for decision.

4. On 30 December 2013 the visa applicant applied offshore for a Prospective Marriage (Class TO) (Subclass 300) visa which was sponsored by the review applicant.

5. The visa applicant’s Prospective Marriage visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 8 May 2015 and the review applicant appealed that refusal to the Tribunal.

6. On 5 September 2016 the Tribunal, differently constituted, remitted the visa applicant’s application with the direction that the visa applicant met Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the purpose of cl.300.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), which is one of the primary criteria for the grant of a Prospective Marriage visa.

7. The applicants first met on as children, having grown up in a small village in Myanmar where there were about 80 families, one church and one school. They became boyfriend and girlfriend when the review applicant was 14 about to turn 15 and the visa applicant was 12 years old in December 2007.

8. In the visa applicant’s Prospective Marriage visa application, she did not declare any previous marriages or de facto relationships.

9. In the Sponsorship for a partner form, the review applicant did not declare any previous marriages or de facto relationships. 

10. On 7 August 2015 the applicants were married in Thailand. After their marriage, the Prospective Marriage visa application was changed to a Combined Partner (UF 309/BC 100) visa application.

11. On 19 April 2018 the visa applicant’s application for the Subclass 309 Partner visa was refused. It is this refusal that is the subject of this review.

12. On 24 September 2018 the visa applicant applied for a Subclass 600 visa to visit the review applicant in Australia. This application was refused on 22 October 2018.  

13. At the time the visa applicant applied for the Partner visa, the applicants were married and applied on the basis of the visa applicant being the spouse of the review applicant.

14. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicants are related by birth (blood), marriage or adoption and the information before the Tribunal, which the Tribunal accepts, is the applicants have known each other since their childhood.

    The primary decision of a delegate of the Minister

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

16. The visa applicant applied for the Partner visa on 29 March 2018 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)) visa. The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to 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.

17. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.309.211 because the delegate was not satisfied having assessed the applicants relationship against the definition of spouse in s.5F of the Act and the considerations set out in r.1.15A made pursuant to s.5F(3) that they are in a genuine spouse relationship.  

    The Tribunal hearing

18. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 July 2021 to give evidence and present arguments by video and the visa applicant participated by telephone. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Pastor Daniel Cung Uk Zaathang from the Zion United Pentecostal Church in Sunshine, Victoria.

19. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Chin Zophei dialect and English languages. 

20. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their lawyer, Ms Mary Hanna of Mary Hanna Lawyers. Ms Hanna provided comprehensive information in support of the application for the visa both before and after the Tribunal hearing. This information was supported by detailed and very well set out written submissions from Ms Hanna and detailed oral submissions at the end of the Tribunal hearing. This information and Ms Hanna’s submissions were of considerable assistance to the Tribunal in the conduct of this review. Ms Hanna is referred to in these reasons as the applicants’ representative or the representative.

21. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic when there were extensive restrictions on the movement and gathering of people in Victoria, other States and Territories and internationally. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicants. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by video. The Tribunal was satisfied the applicants, the applicants’ representative, the interpreter, the witness and the Tribunal could satisfactorily see, hear and understand each other during the hearing. The Tribunal is also satisfied the review applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments to the Tribunal in support of his application for review.

22. At the commencement of the Tribunal hearing the Tribunal explained the role of the interpreter as an aid to communication and asked the applicants whether they had any objection to the use of the interpreter retained by the Tribunal. The applicants individually indicated they did not. The Tribunal explained to the applicants the determinative issues before the Tribunal, the Tribunal’s role and how the hearing would proceed including that the Tribunal is independent of the Department and is not bound by the delegate’s primary decision. The Tribunal also explained the role of the applicants’ representative during the hearing. The Tribunal informed the applicants that it would seek submissions from both of the applicants and their representative toward the end of the Tribunal hearing on any matter they considered relevant to the applicants’ review.

    Pre-hearing submissions

23. The Tribunal received the following submissions on behalf of the applicants prior to the Tribunal hearing, with the main, but not all, documents sent to the Tribunal noted in the dot points:

    31 March 2021

    ·One-page written statement from the applicants’ representative.

    8 July 2021

    ·Visa applicant’s citizenship scrutiny card with a certified English translation;

    ·Visa applicant’s expired Myanmar passport;

    ·Visa applicant’s current Myanmar passport;

    ·Visa applicant’s household members list with certified English translation;

    ·Review applicant’s travel documents 2013 – 2015;

    ·Review applicant’s travel documents 2015 – 2017;

    ·Review applicant’s travel documents 2018 – 2020;

    ·Review applicant’s document for travel to Australia;

    ·Review applicant’s household members list with certified English translation;

    ·Review applicant’s citizenship scrutiny card for his father with a certified English translation;

    ·Review applicant’s citizenship scrutiny card for his mother with a certified English translation;

    ·Review applicant’s Australian Taxation Office Notices of Assessment for the 2017 – 2018 and 2018 – 2019 financial years;

    ·Marriage certificate with a certified English translation;

    ·Money transfers from the review applicant to the visa applicant during the period of December 2016 to January 2021;

    ·Review applicant’s 97 paragraph, 15-page statutory declaration declared on 7 July 2021;

    ·Review applicant’s Victorian current driver’s licence;

    ·Review applicant’s United Nations High Commission for Refugees card;

    ·[Details redacted];

    ·Visa applicant’s April 2019 trip to Thailand itinerary and plane ticket;

    ·Visa applicant’s July – August 2015 trip to Thailand itinerary and boarding pass for a return flight from Thailand;

    ·Visa applicant’s October 2013 trip to Thailand itinerary and invoice;

    8 July 2021 (continued)

    ·Statutory declaration using form 888 declared by Mr Cung Hrin Thang Hlikhin on 29 April 2020, a childhood friend of the applicants, with personal identification information;

    ·Statutory declaration using form 888 declared by Mr Duh Sang Thangeng on 30 April 2020, a childhood friend of the applicants, with personal identification information;

    ·Statutory declaration using form 888 declared by Pastor Zai Tial on 5 May 2020, the pastor from the applicants’ home village in Myanmar who presided over their engagement (in the review applicant’s absence) in accordance with Chin tradition, with personal identification information;

    ·Statutory declaration using form 888 declared by Ms Rachel on 5 May 2020 who assisted the applicants in Thailand during their 2013 trip there, with personal identification information;

    ·A screenshot from the review applicant’s Facebook page;

    ·Receipt for a parcel sent from the visa applicant to the review applicant in May 2019;

    ·Pastor Zaathang's travel itinerary for the trip to Thailand for the Chin marriage ceremony in October 2013;

    ·Review applicant’s April 2019 Thailand trip itinerary and invoice;

    ·Review applicant’s April 2019 Thailand trip currency exchange receipt;

    ·Review applicant’s April 2019 Thailand trip receipts for shopping;

    ·Review applicant’s April 2019 Thailand trip Thai mobile SIM used by the visa applicant;

    ·Review applicant’s April 2019 Thailand trip Thai mobile SIM used by the review applicant;

    ·Letter from Pastor Zaathang dated 20 December 2013 submitted with the application for the Subclass 300 visa;

    ·Subclass 309 Partner visa application - Department of Home Affairs refusal letter and decision record dated 19 April 2018;

    ·Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa application - Department of Immigration and Border Protection refusal letter and decision record dated 8 May 2015;

    ·Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa application – decision from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (differently constituted) dated 5 September 2016;

    ·Review applicant’s two-page relationship statement dated 21 December 2013 submitted with the Subclass 300 visa application; and

    ·Statutory declaration using form 888 declared by Mr Van Bawi Nawt Hlikhin on 30 April 2020, a childhood friend of the applicants and an earlier statutory declaration declared by Mr Hlikhin on 10 February 2016, with personal identification information.

    9 July 2021

    ·Visa applicant’s current Myanmar passport;

    ·Photos throughout the applicants relationship;

    ·Letter from Pastor Zaathang dated 20 December 2013 submitted with the application for the Subclass 300 visa with personal identification information;

    ·Third party supporting statement from Mr Ro Bin, the visa applicant’s father, undated, with personal identification information;

    9 July 2021 (continued)

    ·Third party supporting statement from Mr Tui Hawng, who is the review applicant’s father, undated, with personal identification information;

    ·Golden Inn hotel receipt from the applicants 2015 trip to Thailand when the applicant’s were legally married;

    ·Messenger records from 2015 to current;

    ·Letter from True Vision Plastering Pty Ltd dated 23 April 2020, the review applicant’s employer since November 2018;

    ·Review applicant’s phone call records for 2015;

    ·Review applicant’s phone call records for 2016;

    ·Review applicant’s phone call records for 2017;

    ·Review applicant’s phone call records from 2018;

    ·Review applicant’s phone call records for 2019;

    ·Review applicant’s phone call records for 2020; and

    ·One-page written statement dated 9 July 2021 from the applicants’ representative.

    12 July 2021

    ·One-page covering email from the applicants’ representative.

    ·Six-page written statement from the applicants’ representative; and

    ·Three-page chronology of the applicants’ personal and immigration histories.

    14 July 2021

    ·Screen shot of the review applicant’s movement records.

24. The Tribunal also engaged in other correspondence with the applicants and their representative in relation to administrative matters associated with this review.

    Post-hearing submissions

25. On 16 August 2021 the Tribunal received a submission on behalf of the applicants with the main documents sent to the Tribunal noted in the dot points below:

    ·     Cover email from the applicants’ representative;

    ·     Statutory declaration using form 888 declared by Pastor Bawi Lian Thang Thang Eng, declared on 26 July 2021, who is the Assistant Pastor at Zion United Pentecostal Church and has known the review applicant since 2012, with personal identification documents; and

    ·     Statutory declaration using form 888 declared by Mr Cung Hrin Thang Hlikhin declared on 11 August 2021, who is an uncle of the review applicant and with who the review applicant lives (with Mr Hlikhin’s family) in Australia, with personal identification information.

    Tribunal decision

26. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicants oral evidence, the evidence of the witness, all of the information in the written and oral submissions provided to the Tribunal on the applicants’ behalf and to the information in the Tribunal’s file and the Tribunal’s copy of the Department’s file. The Department’s file included a copy of the original application for the visa and all documents submitted by the applicants to the Department in support of their application.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

28. The issue in the present case is whether the visa applicant is the spouse of the review applicant as the term ‘spouse’ is defined in s.5F of the Act and in accordance with the considerations set out in r.1.15A of the Regulations made for the purposes of s.5F(3) and as is required at the time of application for the Partner visa by cl.309.211 and at the time of this decision by cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship

29. Clauses 309.211(2) and 309.221 require that at the time the visa application was made, and at the time of this decision, the visa applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. In the present case the visa applicant claims to be the spouse of the review applicant who is a permanent Australian resident and has applied for Australian citizenship.

30. ‘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).

31. In forming an opinion about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the visa applicant’s and review applicant’s household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in r.1.15A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.

    Are the parties validly married?

32. If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship.

33. The visa applicant and the review applicant claim to have married in Thailand on 7 August 2015. The review applicant has provided a copy of a marriage certificate for the marriage and the Tribunal accepts the applicants are validly married.

34. 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?

35. To be satisfied that the applicants are in a genuine spouse relationship the Tribunal must be satisfied each of the criteria set out in r.1.15A(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) are satisfied and the Tribunal must consider any other circumstances of the relationship under r.1.15A(2).

    Financial aspects of the relationship – including joint ownership of assets; joint liabilities; extent of pooling of financial resources; any legal obligations owed to the other party; any sharing of day-to-day household expenses.

36. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicants have pooled their financial resources in the form of purchasing joint assets, opening a joint bank account, entering into legal obligations for each other or sharing day-to-day household expenses. As the applicants have and continue to live in separate countries the Tribunal makes no adverse findings against them in this regard.

37. The review applicant provided 69 pages of evidence of regular money transfers to the visa applicant, supported by information about his employment circumstances as an apprentice plasterer, including a reference letter from his employer and two years of income tax information. The Tribunal accepts that the review applicant has been financially supporting the visa applicant since at least December 2016.

1. The review applicant also gave evidence that the visa applicant is not working and he paid for their airfares and accommodation, and the airfares of the visa applicant’s father and Pastor Zaathang when they accompanied the applicants, when the applicants’ travelled to and met in Thailand in 2013, 2015 and 2019. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

2. The Tribunal finds that this consideration supports a finding that the applicants are in a genuine spouse relationship and the Tribunal gives this consideration some weight.

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

3. The review applicant provided the Tribunal with extensive evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that the applicants travelled to Thailand to meet and be with each other during the following times:

   ·     7 October 2013 to 23 October 2013;

   ·     24 July 2015 to 8 August 2015; and

   ·     30 March 2019 to 26 April 2019.

4. The applicants have spent a total of just over seven weeks together since they married in August 2015. The short duration of these trips and small number of them means the applicants have had little opportunity to establish a household together and to genuinely share housework. They have no children [details redacted].

5. The Tribunal finds that this consideration is neutral and weighs neither in support of nor against a finding that the applicants’ are in a genuine spouse relationship.

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

6. The Tribunal was provided with 16 pages of photographs of the applicants together, which was perhaps the least convincing aspect of their evidence of their relationship.

7. However, the oral evidence of Pastor Zaathang and the applicants, supported by the extensive documentation and submissions set out in paragraphs 23 and 25 of these reasons was impressive. The Tribunal formed the view having heard that oral evidence and having read the various statutory declarations, statements and submissions provided, including from the applicants’ fathers and from friends who have known them since childhood, that it is well recognised and accepted in the Chin communities in Melbourne and Myanmar to which the applicants belong, that the applicants are in a genuine spouse relationship and have represented themselves as such, despite facing many obstacles and set-backs, since their September 2013 traditional Chin engagement ceremony or celebration.

8. The Tribunal finds that this consideration supports a finding that the applicants are in a genuine spouse relationship and in the applicants’ circumstances the Tribunal gives this consideration great weight.

   Nature of persons' commitment to each other – including duration of the relationship; the length of time they have lived together; degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other; and whether they see the relationship as long-term.

9. The applicant’s were engaged in September 2013 and married in August 2015, and have been in a relationship known to and accepted by family and friends now for over eight years. The endurance of their relationship is significant given their limited financial means and having had an application for a Partner visa refused in May 2015, appealing that refusal, their appeal being upheld by the Tribunal (differently constituted) in September 2016, their application being refused again on different grounds in April 2018, appealing that second refusal, followed by an application for a Visitor visa being refused in October 2018 [details redacted].

10. The applicants’ representative summarised the strength of their relationship and commitment to each other in oral submissions to the Tribunal. In the written submission dated 12 July 2021 the applicants’ representative submitted:

    The [visa] applicant and sponsor [review applicant] in this situation are a young couple who come from a humble background and in their attempt to be together as a married couple amongst their family and community have had to endure a lengthy and unnecessarily complicated migration legal process that has now continued for over 7.5 years with no visible end in sight. This young couple who started out as childhood sweethearts have grown and matured in their relationship throughout this period of time and despite such adversity, physical separation and legal obstacles, they have continued to be committed to one another and their attempt at one day being able to be together as a family in Australia.

11. The Tribunal accepts these submissions. The Tribunal finds that the applicants view their relationship as an exclusive and long-term one.

12. Perhaps the most impressive evidence provided by the applicants was about the degree companionship and emotional support they draw from each other. The Tribunal received extensive evidence of the ongoing communication between the applicants, including the review applicant’s telephone bills colour coded to show voice calls to the visa applicant. The effort taken to colour code the evidence of voice calls was of considerable assistance to the Tribunal in assessing the frequency and duration of communications between the applicants.

13. The Tribunal was also provided with extensive evidence of other communication using social media applications between the applicants.

14. The Tribunal finds that the applicants have maintained continual and meaningful contact with each other consistent with what might be expected of a couple in a genuine spouse relationship.

15. Despite their limited means the applicants have managed to travel to and meet in a third country three times: in 2013, 2015 and 2019. The Tribunal accepts that they have not been able to travel since February 2020 due to the response of international, Australian and State governments to the emergence of the COVID-19 global pandemic. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant has been unable to return to Myanmar for the applicants’ engagement, wedding or to visit the visa applicant or his or her family for reasons that the Tribunal does not need to document in this decision.

16. The review applicant’s 16-page statutory declaration that he declared on 7 July 2021 that was read back to him in Chin Zophei by Pastor Zaathang was of considerable assistance to the Tribunal in the conduct of this review. That statutory declaration has assisted the Tribunal to understand in greater detail the history of the applicants’ relationship, the circumstances of the review applicant’s departure from Myanmar in 2008 as a 15 year old, the subsequent challenges the applicants’ faced in maintaining contact, the applicants respective family and social backgrounds and knowledge of each other, the challenges the Australian immigration process has presented for each applicant in different ways, their commitment to and support of each other and their current living circumstances.

17. When the documentary evidence before the Tribunal is considered in the context of the consistency of the oral evidence of the applicants’ during the Tribunal hearing, including about the emotional support they draw from each other, their enduring commitment to one another, their commonality of faith and upbringing, their shared values and hopes for the future, this causes the Tribunal to find that the applicants are in a committed spouse relationship to the exclusion of all others and their relationship is genuine and continuing.

18. The Tribunal finds that this consideration supports a finding that the applicants are in a genuine spouse relationship and the Tribunal gives this consideration great weight.

    Any other circumstances of the relationship.

19. [Details redacted.]

20. [Details redacted.]

    Conclusions

21. The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties are married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act, as required by s.5F(2)(a) of the Act.

22. After considering all the evidence before it and each of the matters set out in r.1.15A(3) above, the Tribunal is satisfied that, at the time of the application for the visa and at the time of this decision, the visa applicant and the review applicant:

    ·have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, as required by s.5F(2)(b) of the Act;

    ·the relationship between them is genuine and continuing, as required by s.5F(2)(c) of the Act; and

    ·live together or at least and do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis, as required by s.5F(2)(d) of the Act.

23. The Tribunal finds that the applicants met the requirements of s.5F(2) of the Act at the time of the application and at the time of this decision.

24. Therefore, the visa applicant meets the requirements of cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

25. 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

26. 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 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and

    ·cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Michael Ison
    Senior 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).