1714595 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of applicants seeking to affirm a decision to cancel their Bridging E (Class WE) visa, subclass 050 (Bridging (General)). The central dispute revolved around whether the applicants had made, or were the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia as required by the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicants satisfied the criteria for acceptable arrangements to depart Australia under subclause 050.212(2) of the Migration Regulations. This required the Tribunal to be satisfied that such arrangements were in place, and that the applicants continued to meet this criterion at the time of the decision. The applicants did not claim to meet any alternative criteria for departure arrangements.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that "acceptable arrangements" is not a defined term in the Regulations, but drew guidance from the Department of Immigration's Procedures Advice Manual 3 and relevant case law, including *Chen v MIMIA* and *Lin v MIMIA*. The Tribunal considered the genuineness of the applicants' intentions regarding departure. During an interview, the first and third applicants exhibited aggressive behaviour and explicitly stated they had no intention of ever departing Australia. While the Tribunal accepted that the review applicant suffered medical conditions stemming from her family's residency status and was receiving treatment, it found no evidence that these conditions would prevent her immediate departure or that suitable treatment was unavailable overseas. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no impediment to the second applicant, an Australian citizen and dependent child, departing with her parents. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated they were making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants did not meet the requirements of subclause 050.212(2).