1616895 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant, an unlawful non-citizen, sought to establish eligibility for the visa by asserting an intention to apply for a substantive visa, specifically a resident return five-year (B155) visa, and claiming to have paid for this application. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, a crucial criterion for its grant.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: firstly, whether the applicant was eligible for the grant of a Bridging E visa, and secondly, whether the applicant would abide by any conditions attached to such a visa. Eligibility for the visa hinged on satisfying specific clauses, including being an unlawful non-citizen and demonstrating an intention to seek a substantive visa. The second issue involved assessing the applicant's likely future conduct in adhering to visa conditions, a determination informed by past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, and evidence of contrition.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant met the initial eligibility criteria as an unlawful non-citizen intending to apply for a substantive visa. However, the critical factor was clause 050.223, which requires satisfaction that the applicant will abide by visa conditions. The Tribunal considered the discretionary conditions that would likely be imposed, including not engaging in work or study, reporting as required, notifying of address changes, and not engaging in criminal conduct. Despite the applicant's assertion at the hearing that he would abide by these conditions, the Tribunal found his evidence to be vague and lacking in understanding of the primary decision. This lack of clarity and the applicant's vague responses led the Tribunal to conclude that it was not satisfied he would abide by the conditions.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the necessary criteria for its grant.