Sharma (Migration) - [2021] AATA 2848

Sharma (Migration) [2021] AATA 2848 (13 July 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Pawan Sharma
CASE NUMBER:  1805863
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2013/255495
MEMBER:T. Quinn
DATE:13 July 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 801 (Partner) visa:
·Clause 801.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 13 July 2021 at 4:34pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 801 (Partner) – genuine and continuing relationship – validly married for eight years – sponsor’s mental health and treatment and applicant’s support – applicant’s responsibility for finances because of sponsor’s history of gambling – household and social aspects of relationship – incorrect information in applicant’s statutory declaration conceded and explained – nature of commitment – consistent evidence of deep mutual emotional support – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1985 (Cth), ss 5F(2), 65, 338(2), 347
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15A(3), Schedule 2, cl 801.221(2)
CASE
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206
MIBP v Angkawijaya [2016] FCAFC 5
MIMA v Lay Lat [2006] FCAFC 61
Ndegwa v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 74
Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144
Re MIMA; ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] 168 ALR 407
Selvadurai v MIEA [1994] FCA 1105
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 20 February 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).
The applicant (‘the applicant’) applied for the visa on 18 October 2013 on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor, Ms Carolyn Siranovic (DOB [Date], herein after referred to as ‘the sponsor’ or ‘Ms Siranovic’). At that time, Class BS contained only one subclass: Subclass 801 (Partner). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 801 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 801.221 of the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor (‘the applicants’) were in a spousal relationship as defined by section 5F of the Act (‘the delegate’s decision’).
On 6 March 2018, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision with this Tribunal pursuant to sections 338(2) and 347 of the Act.
The applicant and the sponsor appeared before the Tribunal on 12 July 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence via telephone from Mr Prabjheet Singh, a friend of the sponsor and more recently the applicant.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent who also attended the hearing on 12 July 2021.
It is for the applicants to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. The decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. Whilst the concept of onus of proof does not apply to administrative decision making, the relevant facts of the individual case must be supplied by the applicant(s), in as much detail as necessary to enable the decision maker to properly consider the case that is being put.[1]
[1]Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Lay Lat [2006] FCAFC 61.
The Tribunal has proceeded to a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the material and evidence provided by the applicant(s) on the day of the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review ought to be remitted in this case. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has had regard to:
a.the oral evidence of the applicant, the sponsor and Mr Singh given at the hearing;
b.the submissions of the applicants’ migration agent;
c.all material filed by or on behalf of the applicant; and
d.other relevant documents on the Tribunal and Department files.
The Tribunal notes that not all the evidence and material that has been placed before the Tribunal has been specifically referred to in the Tribunal’s reasons as set out below. The reasons incorporate reference only to that information that the Tribunal has been found to be fundamental or materially significant to the determination of the issues in the case.
STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The issue in this case is whether the applicants are in a spousal relationship as defined by section 5F of the Act.
Clause 801.221(2) of the Regulations 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 sponsor who is an Australian born Australian Citizen. The Tribunal notes that a copy of Ms Siranovic’s birth certificate is on the Tribunal file. Based on the information before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that she is an Australian citizen.
‘Spouse’ is defined in section 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.[2] 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 the sponsor’s household and their commitment to each other as set out in clause 1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in clause 1.15A(3) of the Regulations are effectively questions which must be answered.[3]
[2] Section 5F(2)(aa)-(d).
[3] He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.
The Tribunal is therefore bound to consider and, to the extent relevant, apply the matters outlined in clause 1.15A(3) of the Regulations (and any other circumstances of the relationship under clause 1.15A(2)) to the applicants’ case. Accordingly, the Tribunal has carefully considered these matters in relation to the material and evidence before it. The Tribunal, however, recognises that it is an independent statutory body. It must therefore reach its own conclusions as to the merits of the applicant’s case, which includes an assessment of how and to what extent each factor of clause 1.15A is relevant and applicable, independently of any conclusions reached by the delegate.
Compliance with the prescribed criteria turns on the Tribunal’s satisfaction as to whether or not the criteria have been met and not on the objective existence of that fact.[4] In determining whether it is so satisfied, the Tribunal is not required to uncritically accept any or all of the claims made by the applicants and it has not done so. A decision maker does not have to have rebutting evidence available before he or she can lawfully hold that a particular factual assertion by an applicant is not made out.[5]
[4] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Angkawijaya [2016] FCAFC 5 at 15.
[5]Selvadurai v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and J Good (Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal) [1994] FCA 1105 at [7].
If a decision maker does not believe a particular witness, no detailed reasons need be given as to why that particular witness was not believed. The Tribunal must give the reasons for its decision, not the sub-set of reasons why it accepts or rejects individual pieces of evidence.[6]
[6]Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] 168 ALR 407 at [67].
It is for the applicants, in this inquisitorial process, to put whatever evidence or argument they wish to a decision maker in order to enable that decision maker to reach the requisite state of satisfaction.[7]
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
[7]Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Lay Lat [2006] FCAFC 61 at [76].
Valid marriage
If the applicants are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The applicants have filed a copy of their Marriage Certificate with the Department which indicates they were married on 11 July 2013 which is consistent with their oral evidence. The applicants were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act as required by section 5F(2)(a).
Evidence Generally
The applicants’ evidence was generally consistent. The sponsor suffered deep trauma in her upbringing which commenced when she and her twin sister were rejected by their mother at birth. The applicants gave consistent evidence, along with medical reports on the Department and Tribunal file corroborating same, that the sponsor suffers from depression, anxiety and panic attacks which are generally triggered by interactions with family members. The sponsor gave considerable detail in relation to her childhood and her mental and emotional health history which spans decades and for which she has sought counselling and takes medication. The Tribunal does not propose to detail that evidence in this decision but acknowledges and empathises with the challenges the sponsor has faced in her life. What was also consistent in evidence from the applicants and Mr Singh at hearing was that the applicant’s presence in the sponsor’s life and reliable emotional, physical and practical support has played a great role in the decrease in the applicant’s mental health symptoms and happiness and stability generally. The applicants were physically and emotionally supportive to each other during the hearing and their interactions with each other appeared authentic and did not seem contrived. In particular, when the sponsor was teary after giving her evidence, the applicant embraced and verbally supported her before sitting to give his own evidence.
The applicants met at a pub in late 2012. There are statements outlining this first meeting in the Department file. Shortly thereafter the applicant returned to India to see his family and, on the sponsor’s version of events, to seek permission to propose to the sponsor from his family. The applicants gave consistent evidence that in April 2013 the applicant took the sponsor to his temple of religious worship and proposed to her. She was wearing the ring he proposed with and her wedding band at the hearing and in the photos supplied to the Department and Tribunal. The applicants were married in July 2013 with just a few friends as witnesses, went out for dinner afterwards with more friends and spent the weekend at the Crown Casino as their ‘honeymoon’. The applicants gave consistent evidence about this and the fact that the wedding was on a Thursday and so many of their friends were working and that it was too expensive for the applicant’s family to attend in person. The sponsor does not have any meaningful relationships with her family, and they did not attend.
The Tribunal was troubled by the lack of photos provided by the couple and in particular the lack of photos of their wedding day. Both the applicant and the sponsor initially replied to enquiries about this saying that their previous migration agent did not tell them that they needed to take and supply photos. This explanation troubled the Tribunal. It seems to the Tribunal that a couple getting married, in particular a first marriage for both parties, would want to capture this significant event in their life, especially if overseas family members were unable to attend. It raised concerns about the true nature of the applicants’ intentions in getting married. The applicants both gave evidence that they are not the sort of people to take selfies. The Tribunal accepts this but does not consider it explains the lack of photos from significant celebratory occasions. The sponsor did later give evidence about a history of issues with low self esteem and surgeries related to her jaw and back that have meant she does not like having photos taken. The Tribunal accepts this evidence but notes that the applicant did not corroborate this evidence about his wife when asked about the lack of photos.
The applicants gave contradictory evidence about the applicant’s intentions in relation to his family in India. The sponsor gave evidence that they would like to bring her mother and sister in law and sister in law’s family out to Australia and her evidence taken as a whole appeared to suggest that a large part of why they were seeking this partner visa was to secure permanent residency and/or Australian citizenship for the applicant and that one of the benefits of this would be an ability to bring his family to Australia. The applicant directly denied this suggestion when the Tribunal asked him whether he was hoping his family would move to Australia. He said he would like his sister to visit but did not intend to have his family move here. This raised concerns for the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the sponsor’s evidence on the whole more authentic and credible as she made several concessions that were not beneficial to her case. The Tribunal prefers the sponsor’s evidence over the applicant’s and considers it likely that one of the motivations for seeking this visa is in order to secure permanent residency for the applicant with a possible result that he may be able to move his extended family to Australia. The Tribunal is troubled by the fact that the applicant was not as forthright with the Tribunal as he could have been – not just in relation to this issue but in relation to a number of questions, the applicant answered in vague and general terms. For example, when asked about his meeting with the sponsor’s sister in the last few weeks he gave very little detail and seemed confused about which sister he had met. However, the Full Federal Court has held that people enter into marriages with a variety of purposes and motives. It is not necessarily inconsistent with a genuine marriage relationship that it was entered into by one or both parties with a view to material benefit or advancement, as for example with the hope of becoming eligible to reside in a particular country.[8]
[8] Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144.
Taking the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal considers the degree of the sponsor’s commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others was greater than that of the visa applicant’s. However, the critical question in cases of this nature is whether the commitment is mutual and reciprocal, not the degree of commitment.[9]
[9] Ndegwa v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 74.
Financial aspects of the Relationship
The sponsor is on a disability pension and the applicants gave consistent evidence about her income which varies depending on the applicant’s income. They also gave generally consistent evidence that the applicant works full time as a meat delivery driver earning between AUD800-1,100 per week depending on whether he is offered extra hours on top of his standard 38 hour per week. The applicants both gave evidence that the sponsor is not working and enjoys buying and selling collectibles and watching television. They also gave consistent evidence that the sponsor has a history of a gambling addiction which was a problem for them early in their marriage and included her taking money out of the joint account to use on the pokies. The sponsor gave considerable detail in relation to the psychological advice she has received about why she does this and how her husband has helped and supported her to stop. They both gave evidence that they made a joint decision that the applicant will manage their finances – taking care of all bills and that the sponsor will have her disability pension as a disposable income for things like groceries, outings and buying collectibles. Their evidence presented as authentic – the applicant’s frustration and the sponsor’s shame with this issue were visibly apparent in their evidence and they gave consistent evidence that it has now been years since Ms Siranovic has gone on the pokies but that she buys a lotto ticket once a week.
The applicants have supplied several household bills and rental documents in joint names. They have had one of the applicant’s friends living with them for a couple of years in the past and currently have two twenty-one-year-old female students living with them. They gave consistent evidence that this was for financial reasons to help supplement the rental costs but that they are both finding the current sub tenants difficult to live with.
The applicants and Mr Singh gave consistent evidence that although the sponsor is best not having access to funds, she is good with paperwork and administration and completes the applicant’s tax return and resume for him.
The applicants gave consistent evidence that they would like to buy a house but that this cannot happen until the applicant obtains permanent residency as he cannot secure a loan for same without that. They also gave consistent evidence that the applicant has credit card debt which he is working towards paying off. The sponsor explained that many of the applicant’s financial obligations relate to his family in India and that he has gone into debt to support them through his father’s health issues and death in 2015.
The applicants both own cars and Mr Singh gave evidence that he and the applicants lend each other money. There was some inconsistencies in the evidence about funds transfers in the applicant’s bank account in early 2020 of approximately $6,000 with Mr Singh but the evidence generally suggested that there is more a fluid financial relationship between Mr Singh and the applicants than initially apparent.
The applicants gave consistent evidence that they would like to run a business related to the sponsor buying and selling collectibles although it appears that the COVID19 Pandemic and the sponsor’s health concerns have stalled this plan. The sponsor also indicated they may seek to start their own transport business because the applicant is so good at his job, but the applicant did not mention this in his evidence when asked about future business plans.
The applicants have filed superannuation documents reflecting shared beneficiary nomination between their spouses and one sibling. review applicant has filed his will and life insurance policy which both list the visa applicant as beneficiary.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicants’ financial resources appear to be limited. Although there is limited evidence that the parties have pooled their financial resources in a substantive way or in relation to major financial commitments, they are clearly approaching their financial circumstances in a clear way as a product of a joint discussion and decision. The Tribunal finds no evidence of any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets or any joint liabilities.

The Tribunal accords some weight to the financial aspects of the relationship.
Nature of the Household
The applicants’ evidence was that the sponsor undertakes most household aspects of the relationship as she is not working and is home during the day whereas the applicant is working relatively long hours. The applicants and Mr Singh gave consistent evidence that the sponsor prepares the applicant’s lunch for him. The sponsor was well versed in the applicant’s religious habits which include praying and meditating early in the morning in their spare room on a daily basis.
The applicants gave consistent evidence that they sleep in the same room and same bed but that the applicant goes to bed early and the sponsor often stays up watching television. The sponsor stated her mental health can impact her ability to sleep but that she still sleeps in the same room.
The Tribunal notes the several submissions and documents filed in relation to their joint address and finds that the applicants have been living together in the same residence since around April 2013.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that either of the applicants have any children, either together or of their own.
The applicants knew considerable detail about their spouse’s day to day lives.
The Tribunal accords some weight to the household aspects of the relationship.
Social Aspects of the Relationship
Whether the applicants represent themselves to other people as being married to each other, the opinion of the applicants’ friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship and any basis on which the applicants plan and undertake joint social activities are relevant matters to be considered in determining the social aspects of the relationship.
The applicants gave consistent evidence that they exchanged, and both wear their wedding rings although the Tribunal notes that there are photos on the file where the applicant is not wearing his ring.
There are multiple statutory declarations and statements on the Department and Tribunal files, primarily from the applicant’s friends and family and in general they are relatively generic and pro forma in nature and the Tribunal affords them little weight, particularly those that are now years old. There are more recent statements, however, from their current neighbour and Ms Siranovic’s doctor and Mr Singh – these support a conclusion that the applicants approach the world as a partnership. The applicant clearly attends many of his wife’s medical appointments – although their oral evidence differed in this regard (the sponsor said about 50% of the time her husband attended as he had to work and the applicant said he attended more often than not) it is clear he openly offers his wife considerable support in managing her mental and emotional health. Mr Singh was aware of the sponsor’s health issues and the ways in which she suffered and her husband supports her. Mr Singh gave frank evidence about the strengths and weaknesses of the applicants and how they are able to help each other in this regard.
The applicants gave consistent evidence that the sponsor does not have many friends. The sponsor stated that with her mental health issues friends ‘come and go’ and the applicant stated that she used to have friends but mostly her friends are his friends now.
The sponsor has travelled to India with the applicant twice to see his family – she gave evidence that their trip in 2015 was actually her first trip overseas which at the late stage in her life is significant. They have provided photos from these trips which demonstrate a warmth between the sponsor and her family in law which was consistent with her oral evidence about her experience. They have also supplied photos of joint video calls to the applicant’s family. The applicants gave consistent evidence that if this application is not successful and Mr Sharma has to depart Australia, Ms Siranovic will move with him to India.
The Tribunal was deeply troubled by Mr Sharma’s statutory declaration from 2015 in which he said he had seen his wife’s parents many times, went to their house regularly and helped clean their house and took his mother in law shopping as both parents cannot drive. The applicants both conceded at hearing that the applicant had not met Ms Siranovic’s parents and that although Ms Siranovic cleaned her parents house and took her mother shopping or did the shopping for them, Mr Sharma did not meet his parents in law. This is very concerning and is an offence. Ms Siranovic took responsibility for this at hearing and appeared to be remorseful – coming back to her mistake a number of times throughout the hearing. She said that her parents knew about her husband, but she did not want them to meet him, she described in detail her abusive childhood which has extended to abuse from her mother in particular as an adult. She gave evidence that she was embarrassed and ashamed of her parents and that they were the cause of her mental health issues and although her husband did help her in cleaning their house, he did not actually meet them. The Tribunal has placed weight against the applicant in relation to this history and is concerned about credibility generally in the circumstances, however, their willingness to take responsibility for this misleading statement, explain it and show remorse is also relevant in terms of credit.
The Tribunal has afforded some weight to the social aspects of the relationship.
Nature of the applicants’ commitment to each other
The duration of the relationship, the length of time during which the applicants have lived together, the degree of companionship and emotional support that the applicants draw from each other and whether the applicants see the relationship as a long term one are all aspects to be considered in determining the nature of the applicants’ commitment to each other.
The applicants have now been married and living together for in excess of eight years. Both applicants gave evidence that their future plans are to buy a house and then try to have children. Their evidence was consistent that this door was still open and that they would explore adoption if they could not have children naturally. The Tribunal enquired about the age different which is 17 years and they both gave evidence that they do not feel the age difference.
The sponsor was emotional on and off throughout the hearing and it was clear that she has deep respect and gratitude towards her husband in his work ethic, personality, and support as a partner. She described in detail how he supports her when she has mental health lapses and how he has helped her to overcome her gambling habit and manage interactions with her family. In particular, she described feeling that no one ever protected her as a child from her parents’ abuse and that since Mr Sharma has been in her life, she has been able to set boundaries with her family and put measures in place that are protective for her mental and emotional health. This is certainly to be commended and the Tribunal considers very strong evidence of what constitutes a genuine spousal relationship.
The applicants gave evidence that when the applicant gets home from work he is able to ascertain if his wife has had a ‘good’ day or not with her mental health and that any lapses were triggered by interactions with her family. They gave consistent evidence that Mr Sharma will talk with his wife and give her advice about how to manage interactions with her family and her emotions and help her source any medication she may need. It seemed particularly significant during the sponsor’s evidence that her husband believed her. It is well known that this is one of the greatest challenges for abuse survivors and the sponsor’s evidence suggested that her husband was the first person in her life who believed her and the impact of this on her emotionally and her sense of connection to him was visible at hearing.
Upon returning to the hearing room after the sponsor’s evidence, the applicant appeared genuinely concerned for his wife and knew that it must have related to evidence about her family.
It seems to the Tribunal that the degree of companionship and emotional support these spouses are giving to each other suggest a genuine and continuing relationship.
The applicants gave consistent evidence at hearing which demonstrated a deep level of mutual emotional support. This supports a finding of a married couple in a genuine and continuing, mutually committed relationship.
The degree of companionship and emotional support that the applicants draw from each other has been a significant factor in this case and the Tribunal has placed considerable weight on this factor in favour of the applicants.
Written Submissions
The applicants’ migration agent has filed written submissions which have been read and carefully considered by this Tribunal.
CONCLUSIONS
The Tribunal has carefully considered all of the material and evidence before it, including the duration of the relationship, the financial aspects of the relationship, the social aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household and the degree of companionship and emotional support the applicants draw from each other.
Having regard to all of the circumstances of the relationship and the evidence before it taken as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of application and the time of this decision, the applicants have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others and that their relationship is genuine and continuing.
The Tribunal has considered the circumstances of the relationship as set out in Rule 1.15A(3) and is satisfied on the evidence that the relationship meets the requirements for a married relationship as required by section 5F(2)(b)-(d) of the Act at both the time of the application and the time of decision.
On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of section 5F(2) of the Act are met at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision.
Therefore, the visa applicant meets the requirements of clause 801.221 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.
Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to considering the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 801 (Partner) visa: Clause 801.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
T. Quinn
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994
1.15A Spouse
(1)For subsection 5F (3) of the Act, this regulation sets out arrangements for the purpose of determining whether 1 or more of the conditions in paragraphs 5F (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act exist.
(2)If the Minister is considering an application for:
(a)a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; or
(b)a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa; or
(c)a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa; or
(d)a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa;
the Minister must consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, including the matters set out in subregulation (3).
(3)The matters for subregulation (2) are:
(a)the financial aspects of the relationship, including:
(i)any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; and
(ii)any joint liabilities; and
(iii)the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments; and
(iv)whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other; and
(v)the basis of any sharing of day to day household expenses; and
(b)the nature of the household, including:
(i)any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; and
(ii)the living arrangements of the persons; and
(iii)any sharing of the responsibility for housework; and
(c)the social aspects of the relationship, including:
(i)whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; and
(ii)the opinion of the persons’ friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and
(iii)any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities; and
(d)the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other, including:
(i)the duration of the relationship; and
(ii)the length of time during which the persons have lived together; and
(iii)the degree of companionship and emotional support that the persons draw from each other; and
(iv)whether the persons see the relationship as a long term one.
(4)If the Minister is considering an application for a visa of a class other than a class mentioned in subregulation (2), the Minister may consider any of the circumstances mentioned in subregulation (3).