Singh (Migration)

Singh (Migration) [2018] AATA 5938 (27 June 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Jatinder Singh
CASE NUMBER:  1716277
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2014/48783 CLF2017/23739
MEMBER:Simone Burford
DATE:27 June 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa.

Statement made on 27 June 2018 at 11:02am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 801 (Partner) – genuine spousal relationship – validly married – breakdown of relationship and withdrawal of sponsorship – financial, household and social aspects of relationship – nature of commitment – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15A(3), Schedule 2, cl 801.221
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 11 July 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, Mr Jatinder Singh, applied for the visa on 12 March 2014 on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor. 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 primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant.
Mr Singh was granted a Subclass 820 visa on 17 November 2015. On 11 July 2017 Mr Singh’s application for the permanent visa was refused by the delegate on the basis that Mr Singh did not satisfy cl.801.221 because Mr Singh’s relationship with the sponsor had ended and the delegate was not satisfied that Mr Singh met any of the alternative criteria for the grant of the visa.
Mr Singh seeks review of the delegate’s decision.
Mr Singh appeared before the Tribunal on 13 April 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. No other witnesses were present at the hearing.
Following the hearing Mr Singh submitted additional material in support of his application. A further hearing was held on 19 June 2018 for Mr Singh to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal requested that Mr Singh arrange for the sponsor, Ms Rebecca Watchirs, to attend the hearing to answer questions. The Tribunal also requested Mr Singh arrange for Mr Haani Urooj to attend the hearing. Mr Urooj was a friend of Mr Singh who provided a statutory declaration in support of his application. Neither witness appeared before the Tribunal. Mr Singh indicated that both were unavailable due to work commitments. Mr Singh indicated the witnesses might be available by phone. However, when the Tribunal asked for numbers on which to contact them Mr Singh indicated they were working and would not be available during the hearing.
Additional documents were submitted to the Tribunal during the hearing on 19 June 2018.
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 Mr Singh is a spouse of the sponsor.
Whether the parties are in a spouse relationship
Relevantly to this matter, cl.801.221(2)(c) requires that at the time of this decision, Mr Singh is the spouse of the sponsoring partner, who must be an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen who was specified in the Subclass 820 visa application as the spouse or de facto partner of Mr Singh. In the present case, Mr Singh claimed to be the spouse of the sponsor who is an Australian citizen and was identified in the related Subclass 820 visa application. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor is the ‘sponsoring partner’ of Mr Singh.
‘Spouse’ is defined in s.5 of the Act which 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 separately and apart on a permanent basis: s.5F (2)(a)–(d). In forming an opinion about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties’ household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A(3).
Are the parties validly married?
If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a spousal relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The material on the Tribunal file from the original application included a copy of a Western Australian marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, listing the date of marriage as 5 February 2014. On the evidence, the Tribunal is 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).
The Tribunal finds the parties are not related by family.
Are the other requirements for a spousal relationship met?
In forming an opinion as to whether the parties are in a spousal relationship consideration must be given to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties’ household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A(3), which is attached to this decision.
The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to Mr Singh’s initial application for a provisional spouse visa and the file relating to his application for a permanent visa. The Tribunal also has had regard to the material referred to in the delegate’s decision which Mr Singh provided to the Tribunal with his application for review.
In addition, the Tribunal had before it material submitted by Mr Singh to the Tribunal prior to and during the hearing. These included:
a.    Photographs of Mr Singh and the sponsor together;
b.    An unsigned statement from Mr Singh dated 15 December 2017; and
c.    A screen shot from a Commonwealth Bank loan account.
Following the hearing Mr Singh submitted to the Tribunal:
a.    A statutory declaration from Mr Haani Urooj dated 19 April 2018;
b.    A statement from Bankwest account in Mr Singh and Ms Watchirs’ names for the period 8 December 2017 to 5 January 2018;
c.    Photographs of Mr Singh and a woman identified in the photos as Ms Watchirs;
d.    A cinema booking for 18 April 2018 in the name ‘Jatinder and Rebecca’; and
e.    A booking at C restaurant in the name of ‘Jatinder and Rebecca’.
During the second hearing Mr Singh submitted the following to the Tribunal:
a.    A signed statement from Ms Rebecca Watchirs dated 11 June 2018;
b.    A statutory declaration from Mr Razwan Chawdary dated 18 June 2018;
c.    Receipts for meals dated 22 May 2018 and 11 May 2018;
d.    A restaurant booking in the name of ‘Jatinder and Rebecca Singh’ for 23 June 2018;
e.    Photographs;
f.   Mr Singh’s application for an Indian passport;
g.    A printout from a gym invoice;
h.    A speeding fine in Mr Singh’s name.
Relationship background and status
Mr Singh and Ms Watchirs met in Australia in early 2013. They committed to a relationship in October 2013 and married in February 2014. Mr Singh’s temporary partner visa was granted on 17 November 2015.
Mr Singh and Ms Watchirs were living together in a house in Bertram, Western Australia. The home is in Ms Watchirs’ name.
On 10 February 2017 the sponsor, Ms Watchirs, formally advised the Department that she wished to withdraw her sponsorship of the application as the relationship with Mr Singh had broken down. This withdrawal was referred to in the delegate’s decision.
On 4 December 2017 Mr Singh was sent an ‘Invitation to Comment on or Respond to Information and to Provide Information’ by the Tribunal. The invitation invited him to comment on, or respond to, certain information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to his comments or response, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review, being information on the Department’s file which indicated that the relationship with the sponsoring partner had ended and that the sponsoring partner had withdrawn their sponsorship.
In response to the invitation Mr Singh submitted a statement dated 15 December 2017 indicating that ‘our relationship has broken down from [sic] short period of time. Because I work too much. Butt [sic] still trying to sort out our relationship.’ The statement was handwritten but unsigned. However, during the hearing Mr Singh confirmed that the statement was his and that the content remained accurate.
At the outset of the hearing the Tribunal took Mr Singh through the criteria in relation to which the Tribunal needed to be satisfied in order for the application to be successful.
The Tribunal outlined for Mr Singh the consequences of the relationship breakdown for his application. The Tribunal explained that it needed to be satisfied that there was a genuine and continuing relationship which was ongoing at the time of the decision on his application for review. The Tribunal indicated it needed to be satisfied that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others that was genuine and continuing and that the parties were living together or not separately and apart on an ongoing basis at the time of the decision.
The Tribunal outlined for Mr Singh the limited circumstances, set out in cl.801.221(5) and cl.801.221(6) of the Act, whereby an applicant may meet the criteria for the grant of a visa notwithstanding the breakdown of the relationship, namely where:
·     The relationship ceased to exist because the sponsoring partner dies;
·     The sponsoring partner has committed domestic/family violence against Mr Singh or a member of Mr Singh’s family unit; or
·     Both Mr Singh and the sponsoring partner have an ongoing connection to a child.
The alternative criteria were also referred to in the delegate’s decision. Mr Singh confirmed he understood these criteria.
In sworn testimony Mr Singh confirmed that he understood Ms Watchirs had withdrawn sponsorship for his application in February 2017 though he indicated he had found out about this when he received notice to this effect from the Department.
However, consistent with the statements he provided to the Tribunal he maintained in oral testimony that he was still attempting to work on the relationship and was confident he would eventually be reunited with his wife once he could ‘sort out’ his own issues including getting a new job which he indicated would require him to be on a permanent visa. Mr Singh submitted that he was not separated from Ms Watchirs but indicated he had been living separately from her at an address in Queens Park for ‘four or five months’ (in April 2018).
Ms Watchirs' statement, which Mr Singh provided to the Tribunal on 19 June 2017, was as follows:
To whom it may concern,
While Jatinder and I are still legally married, we don’t live together. We are both busy with work and other commitments, but try and catch up for a meal when we are both free. As I’m paying my mortgage and other bills on a part time wage, Jatinder pays for both our meals when we meet up. As Jatinder works also many hours, it’s hard to make any regular plans to catch up. This is was a big factor in the breakdown of the relationship. As a permanent citizen, he would be able to apply for better jobs which would give him more free time and a balance between work and other commitments.
Regards,
Rebecca Watchirs 11/6/18
The Tribunal notes Mr Singh indicated Ms Watchirs was unable to attend the hearing to answer questions.
In light of Mr Singh’s claims to be in an ongoing spousal relationship with Ms Watchirs despite Ms Watchirs’ formal withdrawal of sponsorship, in forming an opinion as to whether the parties are in spousal relationship the Tribunal consideration must be given to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties’ household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A(3).
Financial aspects
The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided relating to the financial aspects of the relationship including joint ownership of assets and joint liabilities, the extent of pooling of financial resources, any legal obligations owed by the other party and any sharing of the day-to-day household expenses.
According to Mr Singh’s own oral evidence and the material submitted to the Tribunal the parties are supporting themselves and are not sharing day-to-day costs.
There is no evidence that the parties currently pool financial resources or jointly contribute to living expenses. Mr Singh indicated in his testimony that they share living expenses but when questioned about what expenses he indicated that when they go out to dinner or a movie together they each sometimes pay. Mr Singh indicated he is not contributing to the mortgage. Following the hearing Mr Singh submitted bank statements for an account in Mr Singh and Ms Watchirs’ names for the period from December 2017 – January 2018. The Tribunal notes that this account appears to be the same account for which Mr Singh provided statements from 2016 to the Department. However, while the account was previously in the name of Mr and Mrs Singh and addressed to their residential address in Bertram it is now addressed care of Bankwest Cannington and is in the name of Mr Singh and Ms Watchirs.
At the hearing Mr Singh indicated that while his salary is paid into this account, Ms Watchirs’ was not and he assumed she had a separate account for her own purposes. Ms Watchirs’ statement indicates that she is paying for the mortgage on the Bertram property and meeting her own expenses. Mr Singh pays for dinner on the occasions when they go out together.
The transactions are not such as would be consistent with an account being used to meet the general living expenses of a married couple and the Tribunal places little weight on the statement as evidence of on an ongoing spousal relationship, particularly given the changes to the account details, the statement provided by Ms Watchirs that she is meeting her own expenses and Mr Singh’s concession that it is only his salary which is being placed in this account.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the parties’ financial arrangements reflect a genuine spouse relationship at the time of the decision.
Nature of the household
The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence as to the nature of the household including the parties’ living arrangements and any sharing of housework.
There is no evidence that the parties currently live together or share any responsibility for housework.
Mr Singh and the sponsor lived together in a house in Bertram. That house is in the sponsor’s name. The sponsor confirmed in her statement that she and Mr Singh do not live together. Mr Singh provided testimony that he had not lived at the Bertram address, where Ms Watchirs continues to reside, since what would now be some six to seven months.
The Tribunal accepts that Mr Singh still uses that address on some official correspondence including his driver’s licence. However, Mr Singh’s own testimony is that he has not lived at the address for a significant period.
The Tribunal finds that while Mr Singh and the sponsor lived together at the Bertram address for a number of years Mr Singh no longer resides at this address. There is no evidence they are sharing housework or household responsibilities.
The Tribunal finds on the evidence that the parties have not lived together since at least December 2017 or January 2018. There is no evidence that Mr Singh and the sponsor continue to live together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis or that they maintain a joint household or share housework. While the applicant maintains he is working to reconcile with his wife the Tribunal notes that the withdrawal of sponsorship was in February 2017. There is no indication in Ms Watchirs’ statement which suggests she contemplates the parties living together in the future.
Mr Singh confirmed at the hearing that there are no children of the relationship and no joint responsibility for children.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the parties’ household arrangements are consistent with a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of the decision.
Social aspects of the relationship
The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided as to whether the parties represent themselves to others as being married to each other, the opinion of the parties’ friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship and any basis on which the parties plan to undertake joint social activities.
Mr Singh provided an application for renewal of his Indian passport listing Ms Watchirs as his emergency contact and listing his address as the house at Bertram. He also provided other correspondence addressed to him at the Bertram address including in relation to a speeding fine. While this is some evidence that Mr Singh continues to present to official bodies that he lives at the Bertram address and that he is in a relationship with Ms Watchirs, in the absence of other evidence of social engagement as a married couple the Tribunal places little weight on the evidence.
Two statutory declarations were provided to the Tribunal as third party support for Mr Singh.
The statement from Mr Haani Urooj, a friend of Mr Singh, attests that he has known the couple since they married and that Mr Singh stays over at his house on the weekends due to work commitments. He notes that Mr Singh has told him that he is trying to spend more time with Ms Watchirs and while the relationship has had ups and downs it is now going well. The Tribunal notes Mr Urooj was unavailable to attend the second hearing and the Tribunal was unable to question him about his evidence, however at the hearing, Mr Singh conceded that Mr Urooj was basing his testimony on what he had been told by him and that Mr Urooj had not seen that applicant and sponsor together for a long time. In light of this the Tribunal is unable to place much weight on the statement as evidence of an ongoing spousal relationship.
The statutory declaration from Mr Razwan Chawdary, another friend of Mr Singh’s, was provided to the Tribunal at the second hearing. It notes that he has known the couple for some time, initially through work, and that once Mr Singh works out issues with his job ‘he will be able to spend more time with his wife and sort their issues’. At the hearing, Mr Singh conceded that Mr Chawdary was also basing his testimony on what he had been told by Mr Singh and that he had not seen that applicant and sponsor together for a long time. In light of this the Tribunal is unable to place much weight on the statement as evidence of an ongoing spousal relationship.
The applicant has not provided any current evidence that he and Ms Watchirs represent themselves socially as a married couple. The applicant indicated that they had not been invited to attend any significant events together. The applicant further admitted that the two witnesses he offered in support of the relationship had not spent time with Mr Singh and Ms Watchirs together for ‘a long time’.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the social aspects of the parties’ relationship are such as would be consistent with being in a genuine and continuing spouse relationship at the time of the decision.
Nature of the parties’ commitment
The Tribunal has had regard to evidence provided in relation to the nature of the parties’ commitment to one another including the 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.

Ms Watchirs’ statement notes that the parties ‘try and catch up for a meal when we’re both free’. She notes that ‘As a permanent citizen, he would be able to apply for better jobs which would give him more free time to balance between work and other commitments’. She does not indicate in her statement that she and Mr Singh have any future plans together or that they are committed to a shared life as spouses.
Although the couple were together for a number of years there is no evidence that there continues to be a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others. While the Tribunal accepts that Mr Singh and Ms Watchirs continue to see each other occasionally on a social basis the Tribunal is not satisfied that that the parties draw ongoing support from each other consistent with a genuine spousal relationship. While Mr Singh has indicated a desire to reconcile with Ms Watchirs there is no evidence that Ms Watchirs continues to regard the parties as being in a spousal relationship or to see the relationship as long term. Ms Watchirs’ statement refers to the fact that the relationship has broken down and makes no indication she believes the parties will reconcile.
Further, the Tribunal had concerns with Mr Singh’s evidence regarding the relationship history. When asked at the hearing whether he and Ms Watchirs’ relationship had broken down prior to her withdrawing sponsorship in February 2017, Mr Singh stated that the relationship had ‘never ever’ broken down before. The Department file contained information that Ms Watchirs had previously withdrawn sponsorship in May 2016 on the basis that the relationship had broken down. This information was put to the applicant at the first hearing pursuant to s.359AA of the Act. The Tribunal pointed out that this information had been put to the applicant in writing by the Department and he had responded in writing to it. The Tribunal informed the applicant that subject to his comment or response, the information would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review because if accepted it may lead the Tribunal to question the credibility of the applicant’s evidence and his claims that the relationship was ongoing.
In response, the applicant said he only became aware of the withdrawal when the Department wrote to him. He said they weren’t separated at any time but had issues with their relationship. He was confused about the timeline of the withdrawals. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence and the fact that Ms Watchirs did provide a statement following this earlier withdrawal confirming that she and Mr Singh were in an ongoing relationship. However, the Tribunal noted for the applicant its concern that there was no information on the file which supported his claim that the relationship was ongoing or that the subsequent withdrawal of sponsorship by Ms Watchirs was not genuine.
The Tribunal indicated that the applicant could have additional time to respond to the issues raised by the adverse information or to provide additional evidence of the ongoing and genuine spousal nature of the relationship. The applicant was given 14 days to submit further submissions or information on this issue or on any other issue relating to the application. Further information was provided and discussed at the subsequent hearing.
At the subsequent hearing, in light of the applicant’s claim that the relationship was ongoing and that the couple were not separated, the Tribunal put additional details of relationship breakdown to the applicant including allegations the applicant was seeing other women and possibly living with another women from his work in 2016 and that the parties were not living together in 2016. The Tribunal informed the applicant that subject to his comment or response, the information would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review because if accepted it may lead the Tribunal to question the credibility of the applicant’s evidence and his claims that the relationship was ongoing. The applicant was offered time to think about his responses but indicated he would respond at the hearing.
The Tribunal informed the applicant that, as is often the case in circumstances of relationship breakdown, there were additional allegations made as to his personal behaviour but that the Tribunal had formed a view that information was not relevant to the spousal criteria for the grant of the visa and the Tribunal would not be relying on it so it was not put to the applicant in detail.
In relation to the information put to the applicant he indicated that the nature of his work meant he was around a lot of people all the time and that this might had lead the sponsor to draw incorrect conclusions about him but that there was no basis for those conclusions. The applicant indicated he did not have anything further to say on this issue and did not require further time.
Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence on the information put to him and does not regard any allegations contained in the withdrawal of sponsorship to be reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision. The Tribunal regards the fact that sponsorship was withdrawn and has not been reinstated as sufficient in this regard and in the absence of satisfactory evidence of an ongoing spousal relationship within the meaning of the Act.
It was clear in evidence that Mr Singh is desirous of reconciling with his wife and is concerned about not being granted a permanent visa. He stressed several times in evidence that he is supporting his family and needs more time to sort out his relationship. He believes this would be facilitated by being on a permanent visa which would enable him to get a better job and spend more time with his estranged wife. The Tribunal believes Mr Singh’s desire for a permanent visa is genuine but his belief that the criteria for the visa will be satisfied at some time in the future once he has a permanent visa and can ‘sort things out’ does not satisfy the Tribunal that the criteria are met at the time of decision.
The Tribunal accepts that the couple have a complicated history however the Tribunal places great weight on the fact that Ms Watchirs formally withdrew sponsorship in February 2017 and has not reinstated that sponsorship. The parties continue to live apart and the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that this separation is not permanent.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including the factors in r.1.15A, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Singh and the sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others. The Tribunal is not satisfied their relationship is genuine and continuing. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the parties currently live together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis.
On the basis of the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements of s.5F(2) are met at the time of this decision. Therefore Mr Singh does not satisfy cl.801.221(2)(c).
Having regard to Mr Singh’s oral evidence and the documentary evidence including the email from the sponsor withdrawing her support for the application, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of decision Mr Singh does not continue to be sponsored for the grant of a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa by the sponsoring partner, who is in this case an Australian citizen, who sponsored Mr Singh for the visa: cl.801.221(2)(b).
Accordingly, Mr Singh cannot satisfy the criteria of cl.801.221(2)(b).
Do the alternative criteria apply?
During the hearing, the Tribunal outlined the alternative criteria for the grant of a visa to be met at the time of the decision where there has been a breakdown of the relationship with the sponsoring partner. These criteria are set out in cl.801.221(5) and cl.801.221(6) of the Act. In summary, the criteria may be satisfied where:
·     The relationship ceased to exist because the sponsoring partner dies;
·     The sponsoring partner has committed domestic/family violence against the applicant or a member of the applicant’s family unit; or
·     Where both the applicant and the sponsoring partner have an ongoing connection to a child.
As noted earlier, the applicant indicated before the Tribunal that he understood these alternative criteria. He was invited by the Tribunal to make comment about whether they might apply to his circumstances and he indicated they did not. This was confirmed on the material available to the Tribunal.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the sponsor has died. There is no evidence in relation to any family violence and that there are no children and no relevant court orders or responsibilities in relation to children. Therefore Mr Singh does not meet cl.801.221(5) or (6). Mr Singh has not claimed, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Singh meets the remaining alternative criteria in cl.801.221(2A), (3) or (4).
For the reasons above, Mr Singh does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.
Summary of findings
The Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of decision the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life together as a married couple to the exclusion of all others. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the parties are in a genuine and continuing relationship at the time of decision. The Tribunal has found that the parties have lived separately and apart on a permanent basis since at least December 2017 or January 2018.
In summary, the Tribunal finds on the evidence that at the time of the decision the sponsoring relationship has broken down.
Further, the Tribunal finds that none of the alternative criteria for the grant of a visa notwithstanding relationship breakdown apply to Mr Singh’s circumstances.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa.
Simone Burford
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).

[2018] AATA 5938

27 June 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction