1804590 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by an applicant who had been in Australia unlawfully since October 2009. The applicant had arrived in September 2009 on a temporary visa which subsequently ceased. The applicant was located by police and detained in February 2018, at which time he lodged a Protection visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant would abide by the conditions of a Bridging E visa, as stipulated by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

In assessing whether the applicant would comply with future visa conditions, the Tribunal considered the applicant's past immigration history, including breaches of immigration laws, the significance and wilfulness of those breaches, and any mitigating circumstances or contrition. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been unlawful for over eight years and had failed to contact the Department of Home Affairs during this period. While the applicant claimed fear of returning to Cambodia as a reason for not regularising his status, the Tribunal found this explanation insufficient given the prolonged period of non-compliance. Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's assertion that he was unaware he could approach the Department to resolve his immigration status, as evidence suggested he had sought legal advice through friends prior to his detention.

The Tribunal determined that specific conditions, including not engaging in work or studies, reporting as directed, and notifying changes of address, should be imposed on any granted Bridging E visa. However, due to the applicant's extensive history of non-compliance and the Tribunal's doubts regarding his willingness to adhere to reporting and address notification requirements, clause 050.223 was not satisfied. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa (Subclass 051). Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E visa.