Sharma (Migration) - [2019] AATA 6924

Sharma (Migration) [2019] AATA 6924 (1 November 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Ms Bhavna Sharma
CASE NUMBER:  1808487
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2018/42174
MEMBER:Christine Kannis
DATE:1 November 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa.
Statement made on 01 November 2019 at 6:27am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) – Subclass 100 (Partner) – spouse or de facto partner – arranged, valid marriage in home country – financial, household and social apsects of relationship – nature of commitment – minimal evidence of genuine and continuing relationship – not necessary to consider claim of family violence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act (Cth), ss 5F, 65, 359A, 376
Migration Regulations (Cth), r 1.15A; Schedule 2, cl 100.221
CASES
Guven v MIMIA [2006] FMCA 311
Lawani v MIAC [2013] FCCA 114
MIAC v Pham [2008] FCA 320
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 12 March 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 23 June 2016 on the basis of her relationship with her sponsor, Mr Vishal Anand Sharma. At that time, Class BC contained one subclass: Subclass 100 (Partner). The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 100 visa are set out in Part 100 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by the applicant. Relevantly to this matter the primary criteria include cl.100.221 which requires the applicant to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor, unless the relationship has ceased and certain circumstances exist.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl.100.221 because her relationship with the sponsor had ceased and it did not appear that she met any of the alternative criteria for the grant of the visa.
A copy of the Decision Record was submitted to the Tribunal by the applicant for the purposes of the review.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 October 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages
At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal informed the applicant of the existence of a s.376 certificate and explained the effect of such a certification is that the Tribunal is given discretion whether to disclose the document and/or information covered by the certificate. The Tribunal provided the applicant with a copy of the certificate and informed her that it had found the certificate to be valid because the document and/or information had been given to the Department in confidence. The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the validity of the certificate. She made no comment on the validity of the certificate.
The Tribunal noted the document and/or information covered by the certificate was simply the sponsor informing the Department that his relationship with the applicant had ended (which had already been put to the applicant in writing under s.359A of the Act on 30 November 2017).The Tribunal decided to disclose the information and/or documentation and told her it was an email from the sponsor to the Department advising that the relationship had ended.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant continues to be the spouse of her sponsoring partner or if her relationship with her sponsor has ceased, whether she meets any of the exceptions under cl.100.221.
There are circumstances in which an applicant will be eligible for a Subclass 100 visa notwithstanding that the relationship between the applicant and the sponsoring partner has ceased. These circumstances include where the applicant and/or a dependent child has suffered family violence committed by the sponsor (cl. 100.221(4)(c)(i)).
The applicant claims the relationship with Mr Sharma has ceased and she has been the victim of family violence.
The provisions of cl.100.221 indicate that a genuine partner relationship within the meaning of the Act must have existed before the relationship ceased and the applicant would have otherwise met the criteria in cl.100.221. This means that, while the claims of family violence do not have to cause the cessation of the relationship, the relationship which has ceased must have been one which would otherwise have met the requirements of the relevant legislation.
This approach was approved in the case of Guven v MIMIA [2006] FMCA 311 at [22]-[26] where Hartnett FM found that when considering the grant of a Subclass 100 Spouse (Residence) visa it was open to the Tribunal to consider whether at any point of time the relationship between the parties could properly be regarded as a spousal relationship within the meaning of the Regulations and only where it found that such a spousal relationship existed, was it required to make a further finding in relation to claims of domestic violence (as it was then referred to).
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it must be satisfied that a genuine spousal relationship existed prior to the claimed family violence and that if satisfied, it would consider the family violence claim.
The Tribunal notes that there is no general obligation on the Tribunal to point out what evidence is required to meet the family violence provisions, or to disclose its thought processes in advance of its decision as to whether or why evidence provided is deficient: MIAC v Pham [2008] FCA 320 (Siopis J, 12 March 2008) at [51]–[54]; Lawani v MIAC [2013] FCCA 114 (Judge Whelan, 3 May 2013) at [53]–[55].
Notwithstanding, at hearing the Tribunal told the applicant that her statutory declaration dated 18 December 2017 did not set out her family violence claim. The Tribunal provided the applicant with a copy of IMMI 12/116 and explained that two items of evidence from the table were required to make a family violence claim. The Tribunal also informed the applicant that the statutory declaration from psychologist, Ms Maria Davey, in its present form was undated and unsigned.
The Tribunal afforded the applicant additional time following the hearing to submit any further information on which she seeks to rely. On 24 October 2019 a statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 made by the applicant, a signed and dated statutory declaration from Ms Davey and a written submission and letter from the applicant’s doctor were provided.
The applicant was granted a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) subclass 309 visa on 7 February 2017 and arrived in Australia on 25 February 2017. At hearing the applicant said she and Mr Sharma separated on 17 July 2017. In a statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 she said that was the date Mr Sharma walked away from the marriage.
The evidence before the Tribunal included a photocopy of a Certificate of Registration of Marriage indicating the applicant and Mr Sharma were married on 10 March 2016 in Delhi. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the Tribunal was satisfied that 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).
Section 5F of the Act 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 husband and wife 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. In forming an opinion as to 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 parties’ relationship as well as evidence with respect to the nature of the their household and their commitment to each other, as set out in r.1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
The Tribunal considered the matters under r.1.15A(3).
Financial aspects
The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to the financial aspects of the parties’ relationship including the extent of pooling of financial resources and any sharing of day-to-day household expenses.
The applicant told the Tribunal that when she arrived in Australia she brought $125 with her from India. She used $40 to buy an anniversary gift for Mr Sharma and he took the remaining $85 from her bag and said he would give her money when she needed it. He gave her $20 on three occasions to cover TAFE identification, stationery and coffee expenses. She told the Tribunal that the money he gave her was really just the money she had brought from India. She said he did not send her money to her in India after they married and before she came to Australia.
In a statutory declaration dated 18 December 2017 the applicant said when she was living with Mr Sharma in Australia she was not earning any money and he paid for everything. He gave her $20 every two weeks so she could buy coffee or recharge her phone credit. Her SmartRider was also linked to his account.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she and Mr Sharma did not have a joint bank account and did not jointly own any assets.
The Tribunal finds there was no pooling of financial resources or sharing of day-to-day expenses by the applicant and Mr Sharma. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was not employed when she was living with Mr Sharma in Australia and was unable to contribute to payment of their living expenses.
The Tribunal decided that the evidence in relation to the financial aspects of the relationship is not an indicator of a genuine and continuing spousal relationship.
Nature of the household
The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to the nature of the household including the parties’ living arrangements and any sharing of housework.
After they married the applicant and Mr Sharma lived with his parents until he returned to Australia in June 2016. The applicant then returned to live with her parents.
The applicant told the Tribunal that when she lived with Mr Sharma in Australia they rented a room in a house from a woman known as Gran. Another Indian couple lived in the house and the woman was named Sunitha. During this time the applicant did the dishes and cleaned the bathroom. On weekends she cooked for all the occupants of the house and during the week she cooked for Mr Sharma. She said sometimes Gran would eat with them during the week.
In a statutory declaration dated 18 December 2017 the applicant said she and Mr Sharma had their own room in Gran’s house. She cleaned the dishes, bathroom and toilets. She cooked for Mr Sharma and generally they ate together however sometimes their housemates would join them. She said Gran would often shop for the household and she would cook from what Gran bought.
The applicant and Mr Sharma have lived with other people at all times during their marriage. Initially they lived with Mr Sharma’s family and in Australia they lived in a shared house.
The Tribunal decided that the evidence in relation to the nature of the household is not an indicator of a genuine and continuing spousal relationship.
Social aspects of the relationship
The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to the 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.
The applicant told the Tribunal that 550 guests attended their wedding. Photos of the parties’ engagement and wedding celebrations were provided.
The applicant told the Tribunal that after they married they honeymooned for seven days and otherwise spent their time with Mr Sharma’s parents and sister. They celebrated his parents’ wedding anniversary on 9 May 2016. Photos of the parties at a wedding with Mr Sharma’s family in Delhi in May 2016 were provided. She said they did not socialise with any friends or engage in any other social activities apart from having dinner with her uncle and cousins on one occasion.
The applicant told the Tribunal that after she arrived in Australia Mr Sharma took her to his workplace one day and introduced her to his colleagues. She said she and Mr Sharma and Gran and Sunitha went to the house of a friend of Mr Sharma for dinner on one occasion. The friend was Paul and his girlfriend was also at the dinner. She said the six of them also had dinner at Gran’s house three times. The applicant told the Tribunal that she did not recall attending any other social events with Mr Sharma in Australia. This evidence was consistent with information the applicant previously provided in a statutory declaration dated 18 December 2017.
There was minimal evidence that the applicant and Mr Sharma planned or undertook joint social activities after they married. The Tribunal accepts that they honeymooned for a week and had dinners with others in Australia.
The nature of the parties’ commitment
The Tribunal considered the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other including duration of the relationship, the length of time they have lived together, the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other, and whether they see the relationship as long-term.
The marriage was an arranged marriage. The applicant and Mr Sharma first met on 17 January 2016 and they became engaged on 27 January 2016. They did not see each other again until their wedding day on 10 March 2016. At hearing the applicant produced a WhatsApp chat history which showed she and Mr Sharma communicated with each other daily from 27 January 2016 to 18 February 2016.
After the wedding the applicant and Mr Sharma lived with his parents until Mr Sharma returned to Australia in June 2016. She told the Tribunal that during this time she was returned to her parents’ house for six or seven days because Mr Sharma and his mother believed she was practising black magic. She tried to contact Mr Sharma however he did not respond during the first four days. When she managed to contact his sister she was told Mr Sharma was praying. After seven days Mr Sharma, his parents and his sister collected her from her parents’ house.
The applicant said when they lived with Mr Sharma’s parents his family criticised her and accused her of practising black magic. His mother regularly accused her of causing her pain at 1.00 am in the morning and asked Mr Sharma to massage her to ease the pain. Another time Mr Sharma hurt his leg and he and his mother accused her of causing the injury by black magic.
In a statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 the applicant said in April 2016 Mr Sharma accused her of performing black magic. She said in May 2016 Mr Sharma’s sister and mother were shouting and screaming at her and although Mr Sharma was in the next room he did not do anything to help her. She said she felt isolated.
When they lived with Mr Sharma’s parents in India the applicant and Mr Sharma shared a bedroom however he slept on the floor. The applicant said after they had sex he would move to the floor. In her evidence to the Tribunal the applicant said the reason he slept on the floor was because of his own spiritual practices. She also said that he believed he might experience contractions if he slept in the same bed with her.
In June 2016 Mr Sharma returned the applicant to her parents’ house and she remained there until she travelled to Australia. She told the tribunal that when he left her at her parents’ house he said he was flying back to Australia the following day. She later found out he remained in India for another week. In her statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 she said when Mr Sharma returned her to her parents’ house he lied to her and he had remained in India for another week. She said it was shameful to be returned to her parents’ house and despite her questioning why she could not live with her in-laws until her visa was granted, they kept making excuses about the reasons she could not live with them.
The applicant said that after Mr Sharma returned to Australia they communicated by messaging and rarely spoke on the phone. He would frequently suddenly stop messaging and not respond to her messages for two or three weeks and sometimes for up to a month. He told her the reason he stopped communicating was because he and his mother believed that she was trying to cast a black magic spell.
Mr Sharma was notified by email when the applicant’s visa was granted. She told the Tribunal that he received the email during a period when he had stopped communicating with her and she found out about the grant of the visa ten days later only because she had asked his father about his lack of contact and his father contacted his son.
In her statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 she said that Mr Sharma refused to pay for her airfare to Australia.
The applicant said when she arrived in Australia Mr Sharma did not hug her at the airport. Later that night after they had sex she asked him about this and he said he did not want to hug her and would not do so. In her Statutory Declaration dated 22 October 2019 she said despite being cold with her when she arrived, he forced her to have sex with him on her first night in Australia. He continued to sleep on the floor of their bedroom after she came to Australia. She said during her first few days in Australia Mr Sharma was okay but then he changed and became cold and wouldn’t talk to her. He talked to Gran and Sunitha about her behind her back. Sunitha later told her he discussed his belief that she was practising black magic and he had told Gran and Sunitha to throw away the gifts she had brought them from India because of black magic. The applicant told the Tribunal that Mr Sharma flirted with Sunitha in her presence.
In her statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 the applicant said after sex Mr Sharma would shower and pray and say things like she had a negative energy and she was not allowed to touch him. She said she felt abandoned.
The applicant told the Tribunal that on 17 July 2017 she was at TAFE when she received a SMS message from Mr Sharma telling her that he was going to Adelaide and then to India on business. He had not previously mentioned this travel and despite her attempts to contact him he did not respond. She had no contact with Mr Sharma until 7 August 2017 when he sent her a message and said he wanted a separation. She had no further contact with him until 4 September 2017. On that day Gran and Sunitha yelled at her and told her to leave the house. She was not sure of the reason she was asked to leave but they mentioned needing her room and rent. When she would not leave Gran called Mr Sharma and he then sent her a message and told her she had to leave the house. Shortly after this she went to a refuge.
Her evidence at hearing with respect to the messages of 17 July 2017, 7 August 2017 and 4 September 2017 was consistent with information she provided in a Statutory Declaration dated 18 December 2017 and an undated written statement.
The applicant provided a statutory declaration by Ms Davey which contained the following information:
·After the applicant and Mr Sharma were married they initially lived with his parents however his parents advised her to stay with her parents for a few days and she went to live with them in April 2016. During this week the applicant tried to contact Mr Sharma and his parents by phone numerous times however there was no response. She managed to contact Mr Sharma’s sister who told her to try later because he was praying.
·A few days later Mr Sharma called and said the applicant must be doing black magic on his mother because she was in pain. He said he had spiritual powers and he could see who was practising black magic. A few days later his family came and collected her however Mr Sharma insisted she not go near his mother’s bedroom.
·The applicant was criticised by Mr Sharma’s family and on one occasion his sister pushed her out of the kitchen. She was distressed and depressed and said to Mr Sharma “do you want me to kill myself” however he made no comment in response.
·Mr Sharma slept in the same room as the applicant but he slept on the floor because he said when he slept in the same bed with her he developed contractions. He said the reason for his contractions was because she was not a good person. There was an incident when Mr Sharma was in India and twisted his leg and had it plastered. His mother yelled at her and accused her of practising black magic.
·In late June 2016 the applicant was sent back to her parents’ house and she later discovered that Mr Sharma did not return to Australia until a week later.
·The applicant communicated with Mr Sharma when he was in Australia via WhatsApp however at one point one month passed without him communicating despite her attempts to communicate with him.
·The applicant reported that from late June 2016 to 24 February she was at her parents’ home and she recalled being very depressed the whole time.
·When she arrived in Australia she distinctly remembered that he did not want to hug her at the airport.
·Mr Sharma slept on the floor on the floor in their bedroom.
·Another time Mr Sharma said he had cysts in his stomach because she had touched food and mixed something in his food.
·Mr Sharma talked to Gran about his personal problems and Gran would tell the applicant to go back to India at least once a week. She felt bullied by Mr Sharma and Gran. Mr Sharma would verbally abuse her by saying she was dumb or stupid and by telling her she can’t speak English and can’t do anything.
·When the applicant explained to Mr Sharma that she found it difficult to complete the housework when she was menstruating due to back pain he said she was lying.
·On 7 August 2017 Mr Sharma sent the applicant a SMS saying it was time they separated, that nobody liked her and he would see a lawyer in India about a divorce.
·On 4 September 2017 Gran told her to leave the house. A few minutes later she received a SMS from Mr Sharma telling her she must leave the house and must leave Australia. She asked him to book a ticket for her and he said he didn’t care how she got back to India.

At hearing the applicant confirmed that she provided the above information to Ms Davey and confirmed it was correct. She saw Ms Davey five or six times between December 2017 and April 2018 because she was depressed, she was not sleeping and she was having suicidal thoughts.
The applicant said it was never her intention to separate from Mr Sharma and it was all his idea. He wanted the separation and he wanted her to leave the house. She said despite being subjected to physical violence, she loved him and wanted to stay married to him. The Tribunal noted that the applicant left the accommodation she had shared with Mr Sharma because he asked her to leave and not because of the claimed violence.
The applicant said the violence occurred in April 2017 and in June 2017. In April 2017 she heard Mr Sharma talking about her with Gran and Sunitha. She questioned him about this and about their future and in response he slapped her face. In June 2017 he asked her to ask her family for financial assistance for a business venture. When she refused he twisted her hand and punched her on the back and on the thigh. In her statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 she said after this incident she had cried however Mr Sharma left the house and when he returned he did not ask her if she was okay and just asked for food. She said she felt he did not care about her. The applicant said Mr Sharma had punched her on the thigh two or three times before for fun and when she cried he had laughed. The applicant said it was common for Mr Sharma to shout at her and slam doors.
In response to being asked whether she was fearful of Mr Sharma the applicant said she was scared her would leave her. When asked about whether she feared for her safety and well-being the applicant said she was afraid but she did not want to separate from him.
In her statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 the applicant said that she had suffered sexual violence from Mr Sharma and said she did not wish to talk about it further but she had asked a support worker from Zonta House to provide a support letter. The post hearing written submission said the applicant had disclosed sexual abuse incidents and that he had taken videos of their sexual interactions without her consent. No further information in relation to sexual abuse was provided in the written submission and no evidence of sexual abuse was provided at the hearing or in any other evidence before the Tribunal.
In her statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 the applicant said when she was living in Australia she was nervous and scared every time Mr Sharma came home because she did not know what mood he would be in and therefore how he would treat her. She said sometimes he would be nice and loving and other times he would be cold and refuse to talk to her.
In her statutory declaration dated 22 October 2019 the applicant said Mr Sharma was always inappropriate in front of her with Sunitha and he would make her tell the details of their sex life. She said Mr Sharma was very critical of her and made her feel like a sex object and a maid. He said she was dumb and useless and threatened to deport her.
Conclusion
The applicant and Mr Sharma met on 17 January 2016 and they were engaged on 27 January 2016. They did not meet in person again until their wedding on 10 March 2016. They lived with Mr Sharma’s family for three to four months before he returned to Australia. They lived apart from June 2016 until the applicant arrived in Australia on 25 February 2017. The applicant and Mr Sharma separated on 17 July 2017.
The Tribunal finds there no of pooling of financial resources or sharing of day-to-day household expenses. The applicant said Mr Sharma provided no financial support after the marriage including during the five months she was in Australia prior to cessation of the relationship. He refused to pay for her airfare to Australia. There was no third party evidence of social recognition or joint social activities after the applicant arrived in Australia. The applicant said they had some dinners with Mr Sharma’s friend Paul, his girlfriend and Gran and Sunitha.
The most damaging evidence was the evidence in relation to the parties’ commitment to each other. Shortly after they were married Mr Sharma accused the applicant of practising black magic and for this reason in April 2016 he returned her to her parents’ house for seven days. Prior to leaving India he returned her to her parents’ house and told her he was leaving the following day however he remained in India for another week and did not tell her or communicate with her during the week.
The Tribunal places weight on the lengthy non-communication periods after Mr Sharma returned to Australia. The Tribunal places weight on Mr Sharma not informing the applicant that the visa had been granted in a timely manner. The applicant’s evidence was that after she arrived in Australia Mr Sharma was physically violent in April 2017 and in June 2017 and he continued to be verbally abusive which included accusing her of practising black magic.
The evidence did not demonstrate any degree of companionship or emotional support. The Tribunal acknowledges the information provided in the applicant’s statutory declaration that sometimes Mr Sharma was nice and loving however this is outweighed by her evidence at hearing and the various documents provided to the Department and to the Tribunal. The applicant said she was so distressed in India that she asked Mr Sharma if he wanted her to kill herself. He did not respond. In Australia she felt bullied by Mr Sharma and Gran. When she had back pain during menstruation Mr Sharma was not sympathetic. When she cried after he had punched her thigh he laughed. The Tribunal places weight on this evidence and considers it shows a disregard for the applicant’s emotional well-being.
The applicant and Mr Sharma lived together for two short periods, in 2016 in India and in 2017 in Australia. The first period was immediately after they were married. During both periods Mr Sharma accused the applicant of practising black magic and among other things, verbally abused her. He did not support her when she was criticised by his family or by Gran. During the time between these short periods of cohabitation the applicant had limited contact with Mr Sharma and she told Ms Davey she was very depressed during that time.
The Tribunal accepts that when she married Mr Sharma the applicant intended to have a shared life with him to the exclusion of others. The applicant’s genuine intention however is not sufficient in itself to satisfy the requirement that she was his spouse for the purposes of the Act. In the Tribunal’s view Mr Sharma’s behaviour towards the applicant when they lived in India, when they were temporarily separated whilst awaiting the grant of the visa and when they lived in Australia demonstrated his lack of commitment to a shared life as her husband.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor as defined by s. 5F of the Act at any time, including prior to and after her arrival in Australia.
Therefore the applicant does not meet cl.100.221(4)(b) and it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider cl.100.221(4)(c)(i). Further, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant meets any of the alternative sub criteria.
For the reasons above, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa.
Christine Kannis
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).